78832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1RTOC, 2010, pp. 50, 51, 64. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286; FRL–9507–7] 

RIN 2060–AP54 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances—Hydrocarbon 

Refrigerants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA)’s Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program, this action lists 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 

substitutes for chlorofluorocarbon 

(CFC)–12 and hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

(HCFC)–22 in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers. This action also lists 

propane (R–290) as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, as a substitute for 

CFC–12, HCFC–22, and R–502 in retail 

food refrigerators and freezers (standalone units only). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 21, 2012. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of February 

21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not posted on 

the Web site and will be made publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials 

can be found either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9163; fax number 

(202) 343–2338; email address: 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program are available at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Background 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Which acronyms and abbreviations are 

used in the preamble? 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements and 

authority for the SNAP program? 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing section 612? 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

D. Where can I get additional information 

about the SNAP program? 

III. What did EPA propose, and what are we 

finalizing? 

A. Proposed Rule 

B. Final Rule 

IV. What is the basis for EPA’s final action? 

A. Environmental Impacts 

B. Flammability 

C. Asphyxiation 

D. Toxicity 

V. What is EPA’s response to comments on 

the May 2010 notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

A. EPA’s Acceptability Determination 

B. New Equipment Only; Not Intended for 

Use as a Retrofit Alternative 

C. Compliance With UL Standards 

D. Charge Size Limitation (Household 

Refrigeration) 

E. Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food 

Refrigeration) 

F. Labeling 

G. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping 

H. Unique Fittings 

I. Small Containers 

J. Use of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Other 

End-Uses 

K. Training 

L. Other Options Considered 

M. Other Comments on Proposed Rule 

VI. What other changes is EPA making in the 

final rule? 

A. Propane as Substitute for R–502 

B. Wording of Use Conditions for Labeling 

C. ‘‘Further Information’’ Column in 

Listing Decisions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

VIII. References 

I. General Information 

A. Background 

This rule pertains to three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants: Isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A. Hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have been in use for over 15 

years in countries such as Germany, the 

United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan 

in the end-uses addressed by this final 

rule. In Europe and Asia, equipment 

manufacturers have designed and tested 

household and commercial refrigerators 

and freezers to account for flammability 

and safety concerns associated with 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

The 2010 Report of the United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP)’s Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps 

Technical Options Committee (RTOC) 

estimates that approximately 100 

million household refrigerators and 

freezers are manufactured annually 

worldwide. One-third of these now use 

either isobutane or an isobutane/ 

propane blend, and this proportion is 

expected to increase to 75 percent by 

2020. In the retail sector, the RTOC 

observes that hydrocarbon refrigerants 

continue to gain market share in Europe 

and Japan.1

Because hydrocarbon refrigerants 

have zero ozone depletion potential 

(ODP) and very low global warming 

potential (GWP) compared to other 

refrigerants, many companies are 

interested in using them in the United 

States (U.S.) as well. In this action, EPA 

addresses SNAP submissions for use of 

three hydrocarbon refrigerants in two 

end-uses: (1) Household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers; and (2) retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only). 

The submitter of R–441A—A.S. Trust 

and Holdings—has provided 

documentation to EPA, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking, that it has 

withdrawn its submission for the blend 

originally submitted as ‘‘HCR–188C.’’ 

Because the submission is no longer 

pending before EPA, we are not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78833 

2The submitter has informed EPA that that it is 

now marketing R–441A (the blend originally 

submitted as ‘‘HCR–188C1’’) under the trade name 

‘‘HCR–188C.’’ 

3See Addendum g to Standard 34–2010. 

finalizing a SNAP listing for that blend. 

Any person wishing to introduce that 

blend into interstate commerce would 

be required to submit a new SNAP 

application under EPA regulations.2

1. What are isobutane, propane, and 

R–441A? 

Isobutane and propane are 

hydrocarbons, and R–441A is a blend of 

hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are 

flammable organic compounds made up 

of hydrogen and carbon. 

Isobutane, also called 2- 

methylpropane, has four carbon atoms, 

the chemical formula C4H10, and a 

branched structure. It is often written as 

CH(CH3)2-CH3 to distinguish it from 

butane, a straight-chain hydrocarbon 

with the same chemical formula. 

Isobutane’s Chemical Abstracts Service 

(CAS) Registry Number is 75–28–5. As 

a refrigerant, isobutane is designated as 

R–600a by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34–2010 ‘‘Designation and 

Safety Classification of Refrigerants’’ 

(ASHRAE, 2010). It is also referred to as 

HC–600a and iso-C4H10. 

Propane has three carbon atoms, the 

chemical formula C3H8, and the CAS 

Number 74–98–6. As a refrigerant, 

propane has ASHRAE designation R– 

290. It is also referred to as HC–290 and 

CH3CH2CH3. 

R–441A is a blend of four 

hydrocarbons: Ethane (3.1 percent by 

mass), propane (54.8 percent by mass), 

isobutane (6.0 percent by mass), and 

butane (36.1 percent by mass). This 

blend was originally submitted to EPA 

under the trade name ‘‘HCR–188C1,’’ 

and EPA used that nomenclature in the 

proposed rule (75 FR 25799). In 

February 2011, this blend received the 

designation R–441A under ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2010.3 Throughout this 

final rule, we refer to that blend as 

R–441A. 

ASHRAE Standard 34–2010 

categorizes isobutane, propane, and R– 

441A in the A3 safety group. ASHRAE’s 

safety group classification consists of 

two alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or 

B1). The capital letter indicates the 

toxicity, and the numeral denotes the 

flammability. 

Figure 1 illustrates these safety group 

classifications. 

ASHRAE classifies Class A 

refrigerants as refrigerants for which 

toxicity has not been identified at 

concentrations less than 400 ppm by 

volume, based on data used to 

determine a workplace exposure limit 

for long-term exposure, such as a 

threshold limit value-time-weighted 

average (TLV–TWA) or consistent 

indices. Class B refrigerants show 

evidence of toxicity below 400 ppm on 

an 8-hour time-weighted average 

(TWA). 

Refrigerants also receive one of three 

possible flammability classifications: 1 

(no flame propagation), 2 (lower 

flammability), or 3 (higher 

flammability). Class 3 refrigerants 

exhibit flame propagation at 60 °C and 

101.3 kPa, and have either a lower 

flammability limit (LFL) of less than or 

equal to 0.10 kg/m3 or a heat of 

combustion greater than or equal to 

19,000 kJ/kg. 

2. Which end-uses are covered in our 

final decision? 

a. Household Refrigerators, Freezers, 

and Combination Refrigerators and 

Freezers 

This end-use, which we refer to as 

‘‘household refrigeration’’ in this 

preamble, consists of appliances that are 

intended primarily for residential use, 

although they may be used outside the 

home. Household freezers offer storage 

space only at freezing temperatures. 

Products with both a refrigerator and 

freezer in a single unit are most 

common. This final rule includes a use 

condition that limits the refrigerant 

charge in this end-use to 57 grams (2.0 

ounces) or less for each sealed 

refrigeration system (i.e., compressor, 

condenser, evaporator, and refrigerant 

piping). EPA is also requiring other use 

conditions as described in Section III 

(‘‘What did EPA propose, and what are 

we finalizing?’’) below. 

b. Retail Food Refrigerators and Freezers 

(Stand-Alone Units Only) 

This end-use, which we refer to as 

‘‘retail food refrigeration’’ in this 

preamble, includes the refrigeration 

systems, including cold storage cases, 

designed to chill food or keep it at a 

cold temperature for commercial sale. 

This final rule addresses the use of 

hydrocarbons in stand-alone units only. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULESER20DE11.000</GPH>
78834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

A stand-alone appliance is one using a 

hermetically-sealed compressor and for 

which all refrigerant-containing 

components, including but not limited 

to at least one compressor, condenser, 

and evaporator, are assembled into a 

single piece of equipment before 

delivery to the ultimate consumer or 

user. Such equipment does not require 

addition or removal of refrigerant when 

placed into initial operation. Standalone equipment is used to store chilled 

beverages or frozen products. Examples 

include reach-in beverage coolers and 

stand-alone ice cream cabinets. Our 

acceptability determination does not 

apply to large refrigeration systems such 

as walk-in coolers or the direct 

expansion refrigeration systems 

typically found in retail food stores. It 

also does not apply to vending 

machines. 

This final rule includes a use 

condition that limits the refrigerant 

charge in this end-use to 150 grams (5.3 

ounces) or less. EPA is also requiring 

other use conditions as described in 

Section III (‘‘What Did EPA Propose, 

and What are we finalizing?’’) below. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

This final rule lists the use of three 

alternative refrigerants in two end-uses: 

Household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only). Potentially 

regulated entities that may use 

isobutane (R–600a) or R–441A in 

household refrigeration or propane (R– 

290) in retail food refrigeration include: 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES, BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

OR SUBSECTOR

Category NAICS code 

or subsector Description of regulated entities 

Industry ............. 333415 Manufacturers of refrigerators, freezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; 

heat pumps not elsewhere specified or included (NESOI); and parts thereof. 

Industry ............. 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-type. 

Industry ............. 445120 Convenience Stores. 

Industry ............. 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores. 

Industry ............. 722211 Limited-Service Restaurants. 

Industry ............. 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors. 

Industry ............. 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance. 

Industry ............. 423620 Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers. 

Industry ............. 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather functions as a 

guide regarding entities that are likely to 

use the substitute whose use is 

regulated by this action. If you have any 

questions about whether this action 

applies to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding section, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

C. Which acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in the preamble? 

Below is a list of acronyms and 

abbreviations used in the preamble of 

this rule. 

AEGL—Acute Exposure Guideline Level 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS—Chemical Abstracts Service 

CBI—confidential business information 

CFC—chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2—carbon dioxide 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

FR—Federal Register 

FTA—Fault-Tree Analysis 

GHG—greenhouse gas 

GWP—global warming potential 

HC—hydrocarbon 

HCFC—hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC—hydrofluorocarbon 

ICF—ICF International, Inc. 

ICR—information collection request 

IEC—International Electrotechnical 

Commission 

kg—kilogram 

LFL—lower flammability limit 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NARA—National Archives and Records 

Administration 

NOAEL—no observable adverse effect level 

NPRM—notice of proposed rulemaking 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OEM—original equipment manufacturer 

ODP—ozone depletion potential 

ODS—ozone-depleting substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management 

and Budget 

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

PMS—Pantone® Matching System 

ppm—parts per million 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC—reference concentration 

RTOC—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 

Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

TEAP—Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel 

TLV—Threshold Limit Value 

TSCA—Toxic Substances Control Act 

TUV—Technischer U ̈ berwachungs-Verein 

(German Technical Inspection Agency) 

TWA—time-weighted average 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UNEP—United Nations Environment 

Programme 

VOC—volatile organic compound 

WGL—workplace guidance level 

WMO—World Meteorological Organization 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

and authority for the SNAP program? 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances (ODS). EPA 

refers to this program as the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program. The major provisions of 

section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I substance (i.e., 

chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, 

methyl bromide, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II 

substance (i.e., 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon) with any 

substitute that the Administrator 

determines may present adverse effects 

to human health or the environment 

where the Administrator has identified 

an alternative that (1) reduces the 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment, and (2) is currently or 

potentially available. 

2. Listing of unacceptable/acceptable 

substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes 

unacceptable for specific uses and to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78835 

4As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ‘‘interstate 

commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation 

of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any 

product in more than one state, territory, possession 

or District of Columbia. The entry points for which 

a product is introduced into interstate commerce 

are the release of a product from the facility in 

which the product was manufactured, the entry into 

a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer 

releases the product for sale or distribution, and at 

the site of United States Customs clearance. 

5As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘end-use’’ means 

processes or classes of specific applications within 

major industrial sectors where a substitute is used 

to replace an ODS. 

publish a corresponding list of 

acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

The list of acceptable substitutes is 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/lists/index.html, and the lists of 

substitutes that are ‘‘unacceptable,’’ 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ 

and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ are in subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82. 

3. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance from, 

the lists published in accordance with 

section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days 

to grant or deny a petition. Where the 

Agency grants the petition, EPA must 

publish the revised lists within an 

additional six months. 

4. 90-Day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require 

any person who produces a chemical 

substitute for a class I substance to 

notify the Agency not less than 90 days 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

5. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall seek to maximize 

the use of federal research facilities and 

resources to assist users of class I and 

II substances in identifying and 

developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

6. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to set up a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing section 612? 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) 

which established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in the major industrial use sectors 

(subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These 

sectors—refrigeration and air 

conditioning; foam blowing; cleaning 

solvents; fire suppression and explosion 

protection; sterilants; aerosols; 

adhesives, coatings and inks; and 

tobacco expansion—are the principal 

industrial sectors that historically 

consumed the largest volumes of ODS. 

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA 

to ensure that substitutes found 

acceptable do not present a significantly 

greater risk to human health and the 

environment than other substitutes that 

are currently or potentially available. 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who plans to market or produce a 

substitute to replace a class I substance 

or class II substance in one of the eight 

major industrial use sectors must 

provide notice to the Agency, including 

health and safety information on the 

substitute, at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative. 

This requirement applies to the persons 

planning to introduce the substitute into 

interstate commerce,4 which typically 

are chemical manufacturers but may 

include importers, formulators, 

equipment manufacturers, and endusers.5 The regulations identify certain 

narrow exemptions from the notification 

requirement, such as research and 

development and test marketing (40 

CFR 82.176(b)(4) and (5), respectively). 

The Agency has identified four 

possible decision categories for 

substitutes that are submitted for 

evaluation: Acceptable; acceptable 

subject to use conditions; acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits; and 

unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use 

conditions and narrowed use limits are 

both considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and 

are explained in the paragraphs below. 

Substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

with no use restrictions (no use 

conditions or narrowed use limits) can 

be used for all applications within the 

relevant end-uses in the sector. 

After reviewing a substitute, the 

Agency may determine that a substitute 

is acceptable only if certain conditions 

in the way that the substitute is used are 

met to minimize risks to human health 

and the environment. EPA describes 

such substitutes as ‘‘acceptable subject 

to use conditions.’’ Entities that use 

these substitutes without meeting the 

associated use conditions are in 

violation of EPA’s SNAP regulations. 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrowed range of use within 

an end-use or sector. For example, the 

Agency may limit the use of a substitute 

to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. 

EPA describes these substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ The Agency requires the user of 

a narrowed-use substitute to 

demonstrate that no other acceptable 

substitutes are available for the specific 

application by conducting 

comprehensive studies. A person using 

a substitute that is acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits in applications and 

end-uses that are not consistent with the 

narrowed use limit is using the 

substitute in an unacceptable manner 

and is in violation of section 612 of the 

CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 

The Agency publishes its SNAP 

program decisions in the Federal 

Register (FR). EPA publishes decisions 

concerning substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable subject to use restrictions 

(use conditions and/or narrowed use 

limits), or substitutes deemed 

unacceptable, as proposed rulemakings 

to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment, before 

publishing final decisions. 

In contrast, EPA publishes decisions 

concerning substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable with no restrictions in 

‘‘notices of acceptability,’’ rather than as 

proposed and final rules. As described 

in the March 18, 1994, rule initially 

implementing the SNAP program, EPA 

does not believe that rulemaking 

procedures are necessary to list 

alternatives that are acceptable without 

restrictions because such listings neither 

impose any sanction nor prevent anyone 

from using a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

‘‘Comments’’ or ‘‘Further Information’’ 

to provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed are binding under 

other regulatory programs (e.g., worker 

protection regulations promulgated by 

the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘Further 

Information’’ classification does not 

necessarily include all other legal 

obligations pertaining to the use of the 

substitute. While the items listed are not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78836 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6CFC–12 is also referred to as R–12, CCl2F2 and 

dichlorodifluoromethane. HCFC–22 is also referred 

to as R–22, CHClF2, chlorodifluoromethane, and 

difluorochloromethane. 

7HCR–188C and HCR–188C1 submissions 

included window air conditioners as an end-use. 

EPA is acting on this end-use in a separate 

rulemaking. As discussed previously, ‘‘HCR–188C’’ 

is the name of a blend that has been withdrawn 

from review for the household food refrigeration 

end-use. 

8R–502 is a blend of CFC–115 (51.2% by weight) 

and HCFC–22 (48.8%). CFC–115 is also referred to 

as R–115, C2ClF5, chloropentafluoroethane, and 

pentafluorochloroethane. 

9The proposed rule inadvertently represented 5 

pounds as 2.8 kilograms instead of 2.3 kg, which 

is accurate. 

legally binding under the SNAP 

program, EPA encourages users of 

substitutes to apply all statements in the 

‘‘Further Information’’ column in their 

use of these substitutes. In many 

instances, the information simply refers 

to sound operating practices that have 

already been identified in existing 

industry and/or building codes or 

standards. Thus many of the statements, 

if adopted, would not require the 

affected user to make significant 

changes in existing operating practices. 

D. Where can I get additional 

information about the SNAP program? 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

Ozone Layer Protection Web site at: 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the March 18, 1994, 

SNAP final rulemaking (59 FR 13044), 

codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 

A complete chronology of SNAP 

decisions and the appropriate citations 

is found at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/chron.html. 

III. What did EPA propose, and what 

are we finalizing? 

A. Proposed Rule 

On May 10, 2010, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (75 FR 

25799) to list isobutane (R–600a) and 

the hydrocarbon blends HCR–188C and 

HCR–188C1 as ‘‘acceptable, subject to 

use conditions,’’ as substitutes for 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)–12 and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)–22 6

in household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers.7

(This preamble refers to HCR–188C1 as 

R–441A.) 

EPA also proposed to list propane 

(R–290) as ‘‘acceptable, subject to use 

conditions,’’ as a substitute for CFC–12, 

HCFC–22, and R–502 8 in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only). 

For each substitute, EPA proposed the 

following use conditions: 

(1) These refrigerants may be used 

only in new equipment designed 

specifically and clearly identified for 

the refrigerant (i.e., none of these 

substitutes may be used as a conversion 

or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment). 

(2) These refrigerants may be used 

only in refrigerators or freezers that 

meet all requirements listed in the 10th 

edition of Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) Standard UL 250 (household 

refrigeration end-use) or the 9th edition 

(sic) of Standard UL 471 (retail food 

refrigeration end-use). 

(3) The quantity of the substitute 

refrigerant (i.e., ‘‘charge size’’) in a 

refrigerator or freezer shall not exceed 

57 grams (2.0 ounces) in the household 

refrigeration end-use or 150 grams (5.3 

ounces) in the retail food refrigeration 

end-use. 

(4) Similar to clauses SA6.1.1 to 

SA6.1.2 of UL 250 and SB6.1.2 to 

SB6.1.5 of UL 471, the following 

markings, or the equivalent, shall be 

provided and shall be permanent: 

(a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To 

Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture 

Refrigerant Tubing.’’ 

(b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service 

Personnel. Do Not Use Mechanical 

Devices. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant 

Tubing.’’ 

(c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide 

Before Attempting To Service This 

Product. All Safety Precautions Must be 

Followed.’’ 

(d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Dispose of Properly In 

Accordance With Federal Or Local 

Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant 

Used.’’ 

(e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion Due To Puncture Of 

Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling 

Instructions Carefully. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ 

The marking described in clause (a) 

above shall be permanently attached on 

or near any evaporators that can be 

contacted by the consumer. The 

markings described in clauses (b) and 

(c) above shall be located near the 

machine compartment. The marking 

described in clause (d) above shall be 

permanently attached on the exterior of 

the refrigerator. The marking described 

in clause (e) above shall be permanently 

attached near any and all exposed 

refrigerant tubing. All of these markings 

shall be in letters no less than 6.4 mm 

(1/4 inch) high. 

(5) The refrigerator or freezer must 

have red, Pantone® Matching System 

(PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or 

other devices through which the 

refrigerant passes, typically known as 

the service port, to indicate the use of 

a flammable refrigerant. This color must 

be applied at all service ports and parts 

of the unit where service puncturing or 

otherwise creating an opening from the 

refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere 

might be expected, and must extend a 

minimum of 1 inch in both directions 

from such locations. 

(6) The refrigerator or freezer must 

have service aperture fittings that differ 

from fittings used in equipment or 

containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either 

the diameter must differ by at least 

1/16 inch or the thread direction must 

be reversed. The unique fittings must be 

permanently affixed to the unit and may 

not be accessed with an adaptor until 

the end-of-life of the unit. 

(7) These refrigerants may not be sold 

for use as a refrigerant in containers 

designed to contain less than 5 pounds 

(2.3 kg) 9 of refrigerant. 

The proposed rule also included 

several recommendations classified as 

‘‘Further Information.’’ These addressed 

personal protective equipment, 

proximity to a Class B dry powder-type 

fire extinguisher, proper ventilation, use 

of spark-proof tools, recovery 

equipment, training, refrigerant storage, 

and evacuation. 

Finally, in the proposed rule, EPA 

sought information and comment on 

several other issues: 

• The availability of industry-wide 

training on flammable refrigerants for 

refrigerant technicians; 

• Whether EPA should limit the use 

of hydrocarbon refrigerants only for use 

in the original equipment 

manufacturers’ (OEMs’) specific 

appliances, as described in the 

application; 

• Whether the use conditions should 

require ‘‘spark-proof’’ circuits in the 

design of equipment using hydrocarbon 

refrigerants; 

• The availability in the U.S. of 

recovery units that are designed 

specifically for hydrocarbons; 

• Whether EPA should, in a future 

rulemaking, consider an exemption for 

hydrocarbon refrigerants from the 

venting prohibition under section 608 of 

the Clean Air Act; 

• Whether EPA should require only 

one condition for each refrigerant: to 

meet the UL 250 or 471 standards; and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78837 

• Whether EPA should find 

hydrocarbon refrigerants unacceptable 

until an industry-wide standard exists 

for servicing refrigerators and freezers 

using hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

B. Final Rule 

After considering the comments 

received on the proposed rule, EPA is 

finalizing a listing for hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in the household 

refrigeration and retail food refrigeration 

end-uses. 

EPA is taking action on the specific 

refrigerant/end-use combinations 

described in the proposed rule. We are: 

(1) Finding isobutane acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in the 

household refrigeration end-use; (2) 

finding propane acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use; and (3) finding R– 

441A (submitted as ‘‘HCR–188C1,’’ as 

discussed in Section I.A.1 above) 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the household refrigeration end-use. As 

discussed above, the submitter has 

withdrawn its application for the blend 

submitted as ‘‘HCR–188C,’’ and because 

that submission is no longer pending 

before the Agency, EPA is not finalizing 

a SNAP listing for that blend. The 

submitter has informed EPA that it is 

now marketing R–441A (the blend 

originally submitted as ‘‘HCR–188C1’’) 

under the trade name ‘‘HCR–188C.’’ 

For each of the listing decisions 

finalized in this action, we are 

establishing the following use 

conditions after considering comments 

on the proposed rule: 

(1) EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirement that these refrigerants be 

used only in new equipment designed 

specifically and clearly identified for 

the refrigerant (i.e., none of these 

substitutes may be used as a conversion 

or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment that is designed for other 

refrigerants). See Section V.B of this 

preamble (‘‘New Equipment Only; Not 

Intended for Use as a Retrofit 

Alternative’’). 

(2) EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirement that these refrigerants be 

used only in refrigerators or freezers that 

meet all requirements listed in 

Supplement SA to UL 250 (household 

refrigeration end-use) or Supplement SB 

to UL 471 (retail food refrigeration enduse). We clarify that the intent of this 

use condition is to require compliance 

with the provisions specifically for use 

with flammable refrigerants found in 

those supplements, rather than 

requiring compliance with other 

material in UL 250 and UL 471 that is 

not specific to use with flammable 

refrigerants. See Section V.C 

(‘‘Compliance with UL Standards’’). 

(3) EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirement for 57-gram and 150-gram 

charge size limitations for the 

household refrigeration and retail food 

refrigeration end-uses, respectively. We 

are also clarifying that the charge size 

limitations apply to each refrigerant 

circuit in a refrigerator or freezer, not 

necessarily the entire appliance. See 

Sections V.D (‘‘Charge Size Limitation 

(Household Refrigeration)’’) and V.E 

(‘‘Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food 

Refrigeration)’’). 

(4) EPA is finalizing the marking 

(labeling) requirements as proposed, as 

discussed in Section V.F (‘‘Labeling’’), 

with two minor exceptions discussed in 

Section VI (‘‘What Other Changes Is 

EPA Making in the Final Rule?’’). First, 

we are correcting the wording of the 

label located at the machine 

compartment; second, we are clarifying 

the language of the requirement to more 

clearly link each label with its wording 

and location. 

(5) EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirement that the refrigerator or 

freezer have red PMS #185-marked 

pipes, hoses, or other devices through 

which the refrigerant passes. We are 

narrowing the applicability of this 

requirement by clarifying that the color 

must be present at all locations through 

which the refrigerant is serviced, and 

where service puncturing or otherwise 

creating an opening from the refrigerant 

circuit to the atmosphere might be 

expected (e.g., process tubes), instead of 

all locations where the refrigerant 

passes. In addition, we are clarifying 

that the red coloring must be in place at 

all times and must be replaced if 

removed. See Section V.G (‘‘ColorCoded Hoses and Piping’’). 

(6) Based on the comments received, 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

requirement for unique fittings at 

service apertures. Instead we are 

providing this as a recommendation in 

the ‘‘Further Information’’ column of 

Appendix R. See Section V.H (‘‘Unique 

Fittings’’). 

(7) Based on the comments received, 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

requirement prohibiting the sale of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in containers 

designed to contain less than 5 pounds 

(2.3 kg) of refrigerant. See Section V.I 

(‘‘Small Containers’’). 

EPA is also making two other changes 

to the wording of the use conditions and 

‘‘Further Information’’ provisions in 

Appendix R. First, we are clarifying that 

R–502 is one of the refrigerants for 

which propane is listed as a substitute 

in the retail food refrigeration end-use. 

Second, we are including in the 

‘‘Further Information’’ column a crossreference to relevant OSHA regulations. 

IV. What is the basis for EPA’s final 

action? 

To determine whether these three 

substitutes present risks that are lower 

than or comparable to risks from other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available in the end-uses 

under consideration, we examined the 

criteria in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), focusing 

in particular on the following areas of 

concern: Impacts on stratospheric ozone 

and climate; volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions; flammability; 

asphyxiation risks for consumers and 

end-users; and toxicity risks to workers, 

consumers, and the general population. 

In support of the proposed rule, in 

2009, EPA performed a risk screen 

analysis for each of the substitutes for 

the end-use proposed for listing: 

Isobutane in household refrigeration 

(ICF, 2009a), propane in retail food 

refrigeration (ICF, 2009b), HCR–188C in 

household refrigeration (ICF, 2009c), 

and HCR–188C1 (R–441A) in household 

refrigeration (ICF, 2009d). In developing 

this final rule, EPA reviewed these risk 

screens and made minor changes for 

greater consistency and clarity, but 

made no substantive changes to the 

assumptions or to the quantitative risk 

calculations. (EPA did not revise the 

risk screen for HCR–188C, since the 

manufacturer withdrew the application 

for that refrigerant, and EPA is not 

finalizing an acceptability 

determination for the refrigerant.) The 

2009 risk screens and the 2011 revisions 

(ICF, 2011a; ICF, 2011b; ICF, 2011c) are 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Based on the information provided in 

the risk screens, EPA has concluded that 

the overall environmental risk posed by 

each of the three substitutes is lower 

than or comparable to the 

environmental risks posed by other 

substitutes in the reviewed end-uses. 

With respect to public health risks, EPA 

has concluded that without mitigation, 

the risks posed by these refrigerants 

would be higher than other nonflammable refrigerants because 

individuals may not be aware that their 

actions could potentially cause a fire, 

and existing equipment has not been 

designed specifically to minimize 

flammability risks. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing use conditions to ensure that 

the overall risks to human health and 

the environment posed by these 

substitutes are lower than or comparable 

to the overall risk posed by other 

substitutes in the same end-use. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78838 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

10CFC–11, CAS registry No. 75–69–4, is also 

referred to as R–11, CCl3F and 

trichlorofluoromethane. 

11The submission for HCR–188C1, now known as 

R–441A, reported that the GWP of the substitute is 

‘‘negligible or essentially zero.’’ Because the main 

components of R–441A are the same as the main 

components of the HCR–188C formulation 

originally submitted, the GWP of R–441A is 

expected to be similar to that reported for the 

original formulation by A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 

(2007). 

12As a percent of annual VOC emissions in the 

U.S., this represents approximately 5 × 10¥6

percent (for isobutane in the household food 

refrigeration end-use) (ICF, 2009a and ICF, 2011a), 

5 × 10¥6 percent (for propane in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use) (ICF, 2009b and ICF, 2011b), 

and 3 × 10¥7 percent (for R–441A in the household 

food refrigeration end-use) (ICF, 2009d and ICF, 

2011c). 

13LFL is the minimum concentration in air at 

which flame propagation occurs. 

A. Environmental Impacts 

EPA has concluded that, overall, the 

environmental risk posed by each of the 

three reviewed substitutes is lower than 

or comparable to the environmental risk 

posed by other substitutes in the 

reviewed end-uses. All three substitutes 

have zero ozone depletion potential 

(ODP) and very low global warming 

potential (GWP) compared to other 

refrigerants. Although the substitutes 

are VOCs, the emissions from the 

specific uses being found acceptable 

subject to use conditions would not 

significantly affect local air quality. 

Thus the environmental risks associated 

with ODP, GWP, and VOC effects for 

each reviewed substitute are lower than 

or comparable to other acceptable 

substitutes. These risks are discussed 

below. 

A chemical’s ODP is the ratio of its 

impact on stratospheric ozone compared 

to the impact of an identical mass of 

CFC–11.10 The ODP of CFC–11 is 

defined as 1.0. Other CFCs and HCFCs 

have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 1.0 

(WMO, 2011). The ODP of HCFC–22 is 

0.055, and the ODP of R–502 is 0.334. 

The three substitutes discussed in this 

rule have an ODP of zero, as do other 

common substitutes in the same enduses, such as HFC–134a, R–404A, and 

R–410A. 

The GWP of a greenhouse gas (GHG) 

quantifies its potential integrated 

climate forcing relative to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) over a specified time 

horizon. The 100-year integrated GWPs 

of isobutane, propane, and R–441A are 

estimated to be 8 (GE, 2008), 3 (Ben and 

Jerry’s, 2008), and less than 5 (A.S. 

Trust & Holdings, 2009),11 respectively, 

relative to a value of 1.0 for CO2. These 

are significantly lower than the 100-year 

integrated GWPs of the substances that 

they would be replacing: CFC–12 (GWP 

= 10,890); HCFC–22 (GWP = 1,810); and 

R–502 (GWP = 4,660) (WMO, 2011) and 

are significantly lower than those of 

other acceptable refrigerants in these 

end-uses (e.g., GWPs of HFC–134a, R– 

404A, and R–410A are approximately 

1,430, 3,920, and 2,090, respectively). 

The overall climate impacts from the 

use of these refrigerants are also 

dependent upon the energy use by the 

appliances in which they are used, 

because the indirect climate impacts 

associated with electricity consumption 

typically exceed those from the 

refrigerants themselves over the full life 

cycle of refrigerant-containing products 

(ORNL, 1997). A hydrocarbon appliance 

that is more energy-efficient than the 

appliance it replaces would result in 

GHG emission reductions beyond those 

attributable to the substitute refrigerant 

alone. Conversely, the GHG benefits of 

a substitute refrigerant in a replacement 

hydrocarbon appliance would be offset 

if that appliance had lower energy 

efficiency than the appliance it replaces. 

EPA was unable to find any detailed 

life-cycle analysis addressing GHG 

emissions associated with substituting 

traditional ODS refrigerants with 

hydrocarbons. Information in the 

submissions indicates that energy 

efficiency of these refrigerants is likely 

to be comparable to or higher than that 

of ODS refrigerants and of HFC 

refrigerants sometimes used (e.g., HFC– 

134a) (Ben & Jerry’s, 2008; A.S. Trust & 

Holdings, 2007, 2009; GE, 2008). In the 

2010 Assessment Report of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel, UNEP’s Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 

discusses the energy efficiency of 

hydrocarbons compared to that of HFC– 

134a: 

When GWP of HFC–134a is considered 

prohibitive in relation to HFC emissions 

(country regulation or company policy), 

hydrocarbon refrigerants (isobutane and 

propane, i.e. HC–600a and HC–290) or CO2

(R–744) are the current alternative solutions, 

presenting in most of the cases the same 

technical reliability and energy performance 

as HFC–134a. [p. 60] 

Hydrocarbons are regulated as VOCs 

under sections of the CAA that address 

development of State Implementation 

Plans to attain and maintain National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ground-level ozone, which is a 

respiratory irritant (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)). EPA’s 1994 risk screen 

document (EPA, 1994) describes the 

potential emissions of VOCs from all 

substitutes for all end-uses in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning sector 

as likely to be insignificant relative to 

VOCs from all other sources (i.e., other 

industries, mobile sources, and biogenic 

sources). Analysis performed for this 

rulemaking indicates that in the 

extremely unlikely event that all 

appliances manufactured by each 

submitter in these two end-uses were to 

leak their entire charge over the course 

of a year, the resulting increase in 

annual VOC emissions from each 

substitute as a percent of all annual 

VOC emissions in the U.S. would be 

negligible.12

Therefore, the use of these 

hydrocarbons in the household 

refrigeration and retail food refrigeration 

end-uses is sufficiently small that a 

switch from an ODS or from an HFC 

refrigerant would not have a noticeable 

impact on local air quality. International 

experts came to a similar conclusion in 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 

Global Climate System: Special Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC/TEAP, 2005). 

Similarly, EPA expects that additional 

releases of hydrocarbons into the 

environment from use as refrigerant will 

have an insignificant impact on 

ecosystem risks. Because hydrocarbons 

are volatile and break down quickly in 

the atmosphere into naturally-occurring 

compounds such as carbon dioxide, 

EPA would not expect there to be any 

significant amount of deposition that 

might adversely affect aquatic or 

terrestrial ecosystems. 

B. Flammability 

Because they are flammable, 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A could 

pose a significant safety hazard for 

workers and consumers if handled 

incorrectly. Isobutane, propane, and R– 

441A have lower flammability limits 

(LFLs) 13 of 18,000 ppm, 21,000 ppm, 

and 16,000 ppm, respectively. The ODS 

for which these refrigerants are 

substitutes—CFC–12, HCFC–22, and R– 

502—and other substitutes available in 

this end-use are not flammable. When 

the concentration of a flammable 

refrigerant reaches or exceeds its LFL in 

the presence of an ignition source (e.g., 

a static electricity spark resulting from 

closing a door, use of a torch during 

servicing, or a short circuit in wiring 

that controls the motor of a compressor), 

an explosion or fire could occur. 

Flammability risks are of particular 

concern because household refrigeration 

appliances and retail food refrigeration 

appliances in the United States 

traditionally have used refrigerants that 

are not flammable. Without mitigation, 

the risks posed by flammable 

refrigerants would be higher than those 

posed by non-flammable refrigerants 

because individuals may not be aware 

that their actions could cause a fire, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78839 

14Time-weighted average (TWA) = The average 

concentration of a specific substance in air over a 

specified time period—e.g., during the course of an 

8-hour work day. 

15The RfC is a concentration designed to protect 

the general population against adverse systemic 

(i.e., non-cancer) health effects. 

existing appliances have not been 

designed specifically to minimize 

flammability risks. 

Therefore, in order for these 

substitutes to be used safely, it is 

important to minimize the presence of 

potential ignition sources and to reduce 

the likelihood that the levels of these 

refrigerants will reach their LFLs. 

Production facilities, and other facilities 

where large quantities of the refrigerant 

are stored, should have proper safety 

precautions in place to minimize the 

risk of explosion. EPA recommends that 

these facilities be equipped with proper 

ventilation systems to minimize the 

risks of explosion and be designed to 

reduce risks from possible ignition 

sources. 

To determine whether the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants would present 

flammability concerns for service and 

manufacture personnel or for 

consumers, EPA reviewed the 

submitters’ detailed assessments of the 

probability of events that might create a 

fire, as well as engineering approaches 

to avoid sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. EPA also conducted risk 

screens, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, evaluating reasonable 

worst-case scenarios to model the effects 

of the sudden release of the refrigerants. 

The worst-case scenario analysis for 

each of the three hydrocarbons revealed 

that even if the unit’s full charge were 

emitted within one minute, the 

concentration would not reach the LFL 

for that hydrocarbon. 

However, since hydrocarbon 

refrigerants are flammable, and 

manufacture personnel, service 

personnel, and consumers in the U.S. 

may not be widely familiar with 

refrigeration appliances containing 

flammable refrigerants, use conditions 

are necessary to create awareness of the 

presence of a flammable refrigerant and 

ensure safe handling. For this reason, 

this final rule includes use conditions in 

order to ensure that these substitutes 

present aggregate risks that are lower 

than or comparable to those of other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available. This final rule also 

lists recommendations such as proper 

ventilation and storage practices, and 

use of appropriate tools and recovery 

equipment, to mitigate safety risks for 

manufacture and servicing personnel. 

C. Asphyxiation 

In evaluating potential human health 

impacts of isobutane, propane, and R– 

441A, EPA considered the risk of 

asphyxiation to workers (store 

employees and technicians) and 

consumers. The Agency evaluated a 

worst-case scenario that did not 

consider likely mitigating exposure 

conditions such as open doors or 

windows, fans, conditioned airflow, or 

infiltration between a door and its door 

frame. EPA calculated the maximum 

charge of each refrigerant that would 

result in a reduction of oxygen levels to 

12 percent in air, which is the no 

observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) 

for hypoxia (ICF, 1997). Specifically, 

under the worst-case conditions 

evaluated, the charge sizes necessary to 

reduce the oxygen level in air to the 12- 

percent NOAEL in the household 

refrigeration end-use would be 625 

grams and 535 grams (for isobutane and 

R–441A, respectively), which is much 

larger than the 57-gram charge size 

limitation required in the use conditions 

in this rule (ICF, 2011a and 2011c). 

Likewise, the charge size necessary to 

achieve the NOAEL in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use would be 904 

grams for propane, which is six times 

greater than the 150-gram charge size 

limitations in this rule (ICF, 2011b). 

This risk is lower than or comparable to 

that of other available substitutes in 

these end-uses. 

D. Toxicity 

EPA evaluated the toxicity impacts of 

the three refrigerants to workers and 

consumers for the household 

refrigeration and retail food refrigeration 

end-uses. The Agency estimated the 

maximum time-weighted average 

(TWA) 14 exposures for the 

hydrocarbons under different exposure 

scenarios and compared them to 

relevant industry and government 

exposure limits for each of the three 

hydrocarbons (including potential 

impurities in the substitutes). The risk 

screens, provided in the docket, 

describe the toxicity impact assessments 

in more detail (ICF, 2009a; ICF, 2009b; 

ICF, 2009d; ICF, 2011a, ICF, 2011b, ICF, 

2011c). 

To assess occupational exposure for 

the household refrigeration and retail 

food refrigeration end-uses, EPA 

estimated the number of refrigerant 

releases during appliance manufacture 

and disposal and the refrigerant 

amounts released per event. For each 

refrigerant, EPA used those estimates to 

calculate the maximum 8-hour TWA 

exposure, which we then compared to 

the corresponding workplace guidance 

level (WGL). EPA found that 

occupational exposures to these 

hydrocarbons should not pose a toxicity 

threat in either end-use because the 

TWAs were well below the industry and 

government exposure limits. 

To assess consumer and end-user 

exposure for the household refrigeration 

end-use, EPA modeled 15- and 30- 

minute TWAs for catastrophic 

refrigerant release in a consumer 

kitchen under a reasonable worst-case 

scenario. Even under the very 

conservative modeling assumptions 

used, EPA found that exposures to any 

of the three hydrocarbons would not 

pose a toxicity threat to end-users in the 

household refrigeration end-use because 

the TWAs were significantly lower than 

the NOAEL and/or acute exposure 

guideline level (AEGL). 

To assess consumer and end-user 

exposure for the retail food refrigeration 

end-use, EPA estimated 15- and 30- 

minute TWAs as acute/short-term 

consumer exposures resulting from 

catastrophic leakage of refrigerant from 

retail food refrigerators and compared 

the TWAs to standard toxicity limits. 

EPA concluded that none of the three 

hydrocarbons posed a toxicity threat to 

consumers in the retail end-use because 

the TWAs were significantly lower than 

the NOAEL and/or AEGL. 

Finally, EPA assessed the exposure 

risk to the general population for the 

three hydrocarbons in their respective 

end-uses. To do so, EPA estimated 

factory and on-site releases of each 

hydrocarbon and compared them to 

each hydrocarbon’s reference 

concentration (RfC).15 In all cases, the 

modeled exposure concentrations were 

significantly lower than the RfC, leading 

EPA to conclude that isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A are unlikely to 

pose a toxicity risk to the general 

population. These toxicity risks are 

lower than or comparable to those posed 

by the other acceptable substitutes in 

these end-uses. 

V. What is EPA’s response to comments 

on the May 2010 notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

In this section, EPA responds to 

comments on the May 10, 2010, notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

A. EPA’s Acceptability Determination 

Comment: Ninety-nine commenters 

expressed unconditional support for 

EPA’s proposal to find isobutane and 

R–441A acceptable (subject to use 

conditions) in the household 

refrigeration end-use and to find 

propane acceptable (subject to use 

conditions) in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78840 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: We appreciate the support 

for our proposed action, and we are 

taking final action consistent with that 

proposal. 

Comment: One commenter observed 

that although hydrocarbon refrigerants 

provide some environmental benefit by 

reducing GHG emissions, they pose 

flammability risks that more than offset 

that benefit. The commenter stated that 

the global warming impacts of HFC 

refrigerants are currently small due to 

their low emissions (except in the case 

of catastrophic leaks), and practices are 

in place to recover refrigerant and 

destroy foam at an appliance’s end-oflife. The commenter also observed that 

hydrocarbon refrigerants could enter the 

refrigerant recovery/recycle chain 

during servicing or at the end-of-life, 

necessitating costly upgrades to recycle/ 

recovery equipment in order to mitigate 

potential flammability risks. 

Response: EPA reviews substitutes 

according to regulatory criteria provided 

at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7) and described 

above. EPA has evaluated the 

hydrocarbon refrigerants against these 

criteria and has concluded that they 

present overall environmental and 

human health risks that are lower than 

or comparable to other acceptable 

substitutes in the household 

refrigeration and retail food refrigeration 

end-uses. EPA agrees that flammability 

risks could be a concern for these 

refrigerants in these end-uses. But, for 

the two end-uses at issue in this rule, 

where charges are limited and there is 

a long history of safe use globally, EPA 

believes risks can be mitigated to ensure 

the substitutes can be used as safely as 

other available substitutes. We are 

establishing use conditions to ensure 

that these substitutes pose an overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment that is lower than or 

comparable to the overall risk posed by 

other substitutes in the same end-uses. 

With respect to the comment 

regarding risks during servicing and at 

end-of-life, EPA agrees that flammability 

could pose a concern for the servicing 

and disposal of appliances containing 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. However, the 

use conditions in this final rule address 

this potential risk. For example, the 

labeling requirements and the 

requirement for coloring of tubing will 

serve as notification to servicing or 

disposal personnel that an appliance 

contains a flammable refrigerant. 

Section V.L (below) also discusses 

recovery equipment. Based on 

comments received, EPA believes that 

recovery equipment designed 

specifically for flammable refrigerants is 

not yet widely manufactured or 

available in the U.S., although certain 

commenters observed that they have 

created their own equipment to meet 

this need in their own business 

practices. 

Comment: Another commenter 

provided detailed comments on EPA’s 

risk screen for the use of isobutane in 

the household refrigeration end-use and 

limited comments on EPA’s risk screen 

for the use of propane in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use. The commenter 

stated that EPA has underestimated the 

safety risks associated with the use of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. The comments 

covered the following: 

1. A fault-tree analysis calculating the 

probability of failures that would lead to 

ignition of the refrigerant; 

2. The results of an external leak test 

in a mockup kitchen to illustrate the 

consequences of an external leak; 

3. The results of an internal leak test 

and a deflagration/explosion test to 

illustrate the consequences of an 

internal leak; 

4. An observation about a 

manufacturer’s major recall of certain 

models of isobutane refrigerators in 

2009 as a result of safety incidents in 

Asia and Europe; and 

5. A statement of similar concerns 

about the use of propane in small 

commercial refrigeration systems. 

This section of the preamble 

summarizes these comments and EPA’s 

response. 

Comment 1: Fault tree analysis. 

Comment: The commenter included a 

fault-tree analysis (FTA) that assessed 

the probability of household refrigerator 

ignition events due to the random 

coincidence of ignition sources and 

internal refrigerant leaks. An FTA 

considers how likely different events are 

and how resistant a system is to various 

faults. The commenter’s FTA analyzed 

several potential scenarios in which 

ignition events could take place in 

household refrigerators. The 

commenter’s FTA calculated that 

isobutane household refrigerators in the 

U.S. would experience: (a) 2.9 ignition 

events per year at full market 

penetration as a result of independent, 

random events, and (b) an additional 2.5 

ignition events for every 10 million 

refrigerators that enter the market due to 

a specific coupled failure in which the 

malfunction of the defrost heater is both 

the cause of the leak and the ignition 

source. The commenter concluded that 

EPA potentially underestimated the risk 

of ignition-related failures in residential 

refrigerators for internal leak events. 

Details of the two calculations are 

presented below. 

(a) Failure scenarios based on 

independent, random events. The 

commenter’s FTA identified two events 

that, occurring simultaneously, could 

potentially lead to an ignition event: (1) 

An internal isobutane refrigerant leak 

and (2) the occurrence of an energy 

source with sufficient energy to cause 

ignition. The commenter’s FTA 

identified and calculated probabilities 

for the different ways in which each of 

these events could happen. 

To calculate the probability of an 

internal leak event, the commenter 

made assumptions regarding: The 

number of refrigerator repairs due to 

joint leakage and evaporator corrosion 

that might be related to a leak; the 

number of refrigerator repairs annually 

(based on the estimated amount of HFC– 

134a currently sold for use in servicing); 

and a multiplier accounting for the 

number of leaking refrigerators that 

would be thrown away instead of 

repaired. Based on these assumptions, 

the commenter estimated that isobutane 

refrigerators would experience 

approximately 260,000 internal leak 

failures per year in the U.S. at full 

market penetration (which the 

commenter estimated at approximately 

150 million refrigerators). 

To calculate the probability of an 

energy source with sufficient energy to 

cause ignition, the commenter’s FTA 

estimated the probability of sparks from 

internal switches and controls, the 

defrost heater, and static electricity, 

asserting that any of these sparks would 

have sufficient energy to ignite a leak. 

The commenter’s FTA calculated the 

likelihood of an ignition source as 11.2 

in 1,000,000. 

The commenter’s FTA integrated the 

above assumptions and estimates to 

calculate an expected 2.9 ignition events 

per year at U.S. full market penetration. 

(b) ‘‘Coupled leak failure’’ scenario. 

The commenter asserted that in addition 

to the random, independent events 

assessed above, the defrost heater 

presents a risk of a coupled failure 

because an electric short to the 

evaporator coil can be the cause of both 

the refrigerant leak and the ignition 

event. The commenter took three factors 

into account to determine the total 

number of ignition events from this 

coupled failure: (1) The probability that 

the defrost heater will short-circuit, (2) 

the probability that an arc from the 

defrost heater will cause a refrigerant 

leak, and (3) the probability that the 

refrigerant will be present in sufficient 

quantities to ignite (i.e., whether the 

concentration will be at the LFL or 

higher). The commenter estimated that 

for every 10 million household 

refrigerators using isobutane that are 

produced, there would be an estimated 

2.5 failure events in which an electrical 

short to the evaporator coil causes both 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78841 

a refrigerant leak and an ignition over 

the lifetime of those units. The 

commenter clarified that this value is in 

addition to the ignition events 

calculated in the previous FTA, which 

would result from the coincidence of 

independent, random events. 

Response: While EPA believes that 

the commenter has overestimated 

failure probabilities, we agree with the 

commenter that the risks associated 

with the use of isobutane in household 

refrigerators are greater than zero. EPA 

believes, however, that these risks are 

sufficiently small and should not 

preclude a determination that isobutane 

is acceptable for use subject to use 

conditions that are for the purpose of 

mitigating the potential risks. 

EPA’s interpretation of the risk of 

ignition-related failures in residential 

refrigerators for internal leak events is 

based on information presented in ‘‘Risk 

Assessment of Flammable Refrigerants 

for Use in Home Appliances’’ (A.D. 

Little, 1991). The A.D. Little report, 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, included an FTA in which 

leak rate calculations were based on 

historical leak rate data provided by 

three refrigerator manufacturers. As 

explained in more detail below, EPA 

believes that many elements of the 

commenter’s FTA are undocumented, 

are at odds with the industry data used 

in the A.D. Little report, and present 

internal analytical inconsistencies. 

(a) Failure scenarios based on 

independent, random events. Regarding 

the failure scenarios based on 

independent, random events, we note 

that the commenter’s discussion of 

methodology, the equation used for the 

calculation, and the calculations in the 

commenter’s FTA were inconsistent 

with each other, making it difficult to 

evaluate what had been done. Based on 

the commenter’s discussion of 

methodology, EPA believes that the 

commenter’s FTA applied assumptions 

that are either undocumented or 

unsupported by industry data. One such 

assumption is particularly problematic: 

The commenter’s analysis appears to 

have considered all leaks as potential 

risks for ignition. However, in order for 

a leak to pose a potential risk for 

ignition, the refrigerant must be present 

in amounts that meet or exceed the LFL. 

The ability of a refrigerant to 

accumulate and reach its LFL is a 

function of both the rate at which the 

leak occurs and the presence of 

enclosed spaces that can trap the 

refrigerant and allow it to build up. 

Neither of these conditions was 

accounted for in the commenter’s 

probability calculations. 

As previously mentioned, the A.D. 

Little report calculated leak rates from 

historical leak rate data provided by 

three refrigerator manufacturers. A.D. 

Little distinguished ‘‘catastrophic’’ leaks 

(the loss of a significant portion of 

refrigerant charge over a few minutes) 

from ‘‘slow’’ leaks, observing that only 

catastrophic or ‘‘fast’’ leaks would allow 

refrigerant to accumulate to a level of 

concern. The report goes on to calculate 

the ‘‘average’’ risk that a leak is a fast 

leak as 0.1 percent and the ‘‘worst-case’’ 

risk that a leak is a fast leak as 1 percent. 

EPA believes that the commenter’s 

failure to distinguish ‘‘slow’’ from ‘‘fast’’ 

leaks causes the commenter’s analysis to 

overestimate the risk of an ignitable leak 

by at least two orders of magnitude. 

Furthermore, today’s rule finalizes 

use conditions that guard against the 

potential that refrigerant from a ‘‘fast’’ 

leak will be able to accumulate in 

amounts that reach the LFL, or that an 

ignition source would cause an ignition 

event in the case of a significant leak. 

The use conditions require any 

household refrigerator using isobutane 

to be designed specifically for use with 

flammable refrigerant in a manner that 

complies with the UL 250 Standard. UL 

250, Supplement SA, ‘‘Requirements for 

Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a 

Flammable Refrigerant in the 

Refrigerating System,’’ is intended to 

protect against an ignition incident in 

the event of a refrigerant leak. Units that 

are in compliance with UL 250 

(particularly Supplement SA) have 

passed appropriate ignition or leakage 

tests as stipulated in the standard. 

Passing the leakage test (at SA 5.1.2.7 

and SA 5.1.3.6) ensures that refrigerant 

concentrations in the event of a leak do 

not reach or exceed 75 percent of the 

LFL inside any internal or external 

electrical component compartments. 

(b) ‘‘Coupled leak failure’’ scenario. 

EPA’s concerns about the independent 

variables underlying the coupled leak 

failure scenario are the same as those 

articulated above for randomized 

events. The commenter did not provide 

clear documentation or a rationale for 

how estimates were derived. 

EPA believes that the commenter 

overestimated the probability that a 

defrost heater would cause a leak and 

cause ignition because the calculation 

neglected to account for an important 

factor: the probability of a defrost cycle 

coinciding with the time period during 

which concentrations in the 

compartment reach the LFL. Even if a 

refrigerant is present in sufficient 

quantity (i.e., at LFL), it will not ignite 

if there is no ignition source. For 

example, if the door to a compartment 

that contains refrigerant at LFL is 

opened before a new defrost cycle 

begins and the refrigerant dissipates to 

concentrations below the LFL, then no 

ignition event will take place, when the 

next defrost heater cycle begins and an 

arc occurs. The commenter claimed that 

the defrost cycle is only active 2 percent 

of the time (for three 10-minute periods 

per day). Had the commenter 

incorporated this factor into the 

calculations, the number of coupled 

leak failures would be approximately 50 

times lower, dropping from 2.5 per 10 

million units to about 0.05 per 10 

million units. Since this is the 

probability of a coupled leak failure 

over the lifetime of a unit, and the 

average lifetime of a unit is estimated to 

be a minimum of 10 years, this would 

correspond to at most 0.08 ignition 

events per year at full market 

penetration (approximately 150 million 

refrigerators, according to the 

commenter) due to a coupled leak 

failure. We consider this a reasonable 

risk level. Moreover, use conditions in 

this final rule should further decrease 

the likelihood of such an event 

occurring, and that these risks are 

sufficiently small and should not 

preclude a determination that isobutane 

is acceptable for use, subject to use 

conditions that are for the purpose of 

mitigating potential risks. 

Comment 2: External leak test. 

The commenter presented results 

from an experiment that mimicked a 

leak from an isobutane refrigerator using 

a bottom-freezer refrigerator located 

inside a controlled ambient chamber 

and performed test measurements of 

isobutane levels in a mockup kitchen. 

The commenter stated that the 

experiment followed the leak procedure 

in the UL 250 standard, including the 

following setup: 

• A kitchen intended to closely 

resemble a typical U.S. kitchen; 

• A bottom-freezer refrigerator 

located inside a control ambient 

chamber; 

• A 57-gram charge of isobutane; and 

• Eight calibrated Henze-Hauck 

concentration sensors near potential 

ignition sources. 

After running the test, the commenter 

stated that five sensors showed 

isobutane concentrations exceeding the 

LFL for several minutes. The commenter 

used these results as the basis of an 

assertion that EPA underestimated the 

risks from external leaks. 

Response: To assess the commenter’s 

experiment fully, EPA would require 

values for the commenter’s test 

parameters and supporting 

documentation. Based on the 

information provided, however, we 

have the following responses. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78842 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

16Under SA5.1 of the Standard, a leakage test is 

required to ensure that refrigerant concentrations 

measured near any internal or external electrical 

component cannot exceed 75% of the LFL at any 

point in time and, furthermore, cannot exceed 50% 

of the LFL for more than 5 minutes at a time. 

(SA5.1.2.7, SA5.1.3.6). For any locations in which 

the LFL exceeds these amounts, the product would 

need to pass an ignition test (SA5.2) and a 

temperature test (SA 5.3) to ensure that electrical 

and heating components will not ignite the specific 

flammable refrigerant under consideration in order 

to comply with UL 250. 

We note that the commenter’s 

experiment was meant to simulate a 

worst-case scenario leak. Based on 

industry data in the A.D. Little report, 

the annual probability of a catastrophic 

leak outside a given refrigerator is 

typically 3.6 × 10¥7, with a worst-case 

probability of 9.0 × 10¥6. 

The commenter did not provide the 

make and model of the refrigerator used, 

and did not describe whether it was 

designed specifically to use isobutane as 

a refrigerant. Since EPA is requiring any 

isobutane refrigerator to be designed 

specifically for use with flammable 

refrigerant and to comply with 

Supplement SA of UL 250 for use with 

flammable refrigerants, results from a 

test for a refrigerator not designed to 

meet the requirements of Supplement 

SA would not reflect the risks 

associated with an isobutane refrigerator 

that is compliant with the use 

conditions in this final rule. Even if the 

refrigerator were specifically designed 

for use with an isobutane refrigerant and 

fully compliant with all portions of the 

UL 250 Standard, EPA believes that the 

leaked refrigerant at the locations of the 

five sensors showing isobutane 

concentrations at or exceeding the LFL 

is not likely to ignite for the reasons 

discussed below. 

The commenter’s experiment leaked 

an unrealistically large amount of 

refrigerant, causing slightly higher 

measurements for isobutane 

concentrations than could be expected 

in the actual event of a leak. As 

described in Section V.D of this 

preamble (Charge Size Limitation— 

Household Refrigeration), the proposed 

and final rules limit the charge size for 

each sealed refrigerant system to 57 

grams, with a use condition for 

compliance with the UL 250 Standard 

Supplement SA, which calls for a 

charge size that will not leak more than 

50 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant 

with properties similar to isobutane. 

Thus, a leak of 57 grams, such as the 

one described in the commenter’s 

experiment, is not consistent with a 

possible leak from an isobutane 

refrigerator that is compliant with the 

use conditions in this final rule. 

The first of the five sensors that 

showed isobutane concentrations above 

the LFL registered a maximum level of 

1.9% for approximately 0.6 minutes (36 

seconds). This was just barely above the 

LFL of 1.8% and had a duration of less 

than a minute. The sensor would have 

measured a concentration at or above 

the LFL for less than 0.6 minutes, if at 

all, if the test had leaked a realistic 

amount of refrigerant based on the use 

conditions in the proposed and final 

rules. 

The concentrations measured at the 

four other sensors likely still would 

have been higher than the LFL, even if 

a realistic amount of refrigerant had 

been leaked. However, EPA does not 

believe that there are likely ignition 

sources present at those locations, 

which are near the compressor relay, on 

the floor behind the refrigerator, on the 

floor just in front of the refrigerator, and 

on the floor 2.5 meters in front of the 

refrigerator. If the refrigerator were 

designed in accordance with the UL 250 

Standard as required by this rule, then 

there would be no ignition sources in 

either of the first two locations, or the 

refrigerator would be designed in such 

a way that the LFL would not be 

reached near an ignition source in those 

locations.16 As for the last two sensors, 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that these locations are a likely 

source of sparks. While not impossible, 

we believe it is highly unlikely that a 

major external leak would occur and at 

the same time, someone would light a 

match or cigarette in their kitchen and 

then drop it on the floor. We note that 

the LFL was not reached at the sensor 

located near a more likely spark 

source—30 inches above the floor at an 

electrical outlet. 

In response to the commenter’s 

general observation that EPA’s risk 

screen may underestimate risks, EPA 

revisited the assumptions made in the 

end-use modeling for both isobutane 

and R–441A in the household 

refrigeration end-use to identify 

opportunities for a more conservative 

analysis. The results of this analysis are 

provided in a memo, ‘‘Additional enduse modeling for household refrigerators 

and freezers’’ (ICF, 2011d), which is 

provided in the docket for this 

rulemaking. This exercise identified two 

parameters for which assumptions 

could be more conservative: 

• Leak amounts were increased to 57 

grams (representing the entire allowable 

charge size) rather than 50 grams (for 

isobutane) and 40 grams (for R–441A), 

which were the intended charge sizes 

submitted by the applicants. While a 

leak amount of 57 grams is greater than 

that allowed by the UL 250 Standard, 

this additional analysis conservatively 

accounts for the possibility of incorrect 

manufacturer testing of the product. (We 

note that a refrigerator that leaks more 

than 50 grams of isobutane or R–441A 

refrigerant would not be in compliance 

with UL 250, and therefore would be in 

violation of the use conditions of this 

rule.) 

• Stratification was more 

conservatively modeled through the 

assumption that 95 percent of the leaked 

refrigerant mixes evenly into the bottom 

0.2 meters (9 inches) of the room, rather 

than the bottom 0.4 meters as assumed 

in the risk screen. 

Using these more conservative 

assumptions, EPA performed additional 

flammability and threshold analysis. 

EPA found that even with a higher leak 

amount and a greater degree of 

stratification, the LFL was not reached 

in the model for either refrigerant. 

Furthermore, it would take a 75-gram 

leak in an 18 m3 kitchen or a 57-gram 

leak in a 13.8 m3 kitchen to meet or 

exceed the LFL in the lower portion of 

the room for isobutane. Likewise, it 

would take a 59-gram leak in an 18 m3

kitchen or a 57-gram leak in a 17.3 m3

kitchen to meet or exceed the LFL in the 

lower compartment of the room for R– 

441A. It should be noted that a survey 

of kitchen sizes found the smallest 

kitchen volume to be 31 m3, with 99 

percent of kitchens having a volume of 

at least 53 m3 (Murray, 1997 as cited in 

ICF, 2009a; ICF, 2009d; ICF, 2011a; and 

ICF, 2011c). Thus the results of this 

more conservative and protective 

modeling do not indicate a significant 

cause for concern that would cause us 

to change our determination that 

isobutane and R–441A are acceptable 

subject to use conditions for use in the 

household refrigeration end-use. 

Depending on the mixing conditions, 

it is still possible that in certain 

locations at floor level, or in restricted 

areas such as the space between a 

refrigerator and a wall, the 

concentrations of isobutane or R–441A 

could reach their LFLs for a few 

minutes, posing a threat in the presence 

of a spark. However, in the worst case, 

the annual probability of a ‘‘fast’’ 

external leak occurring and an ignition 

source being present simultaneously is 

approximately 5.0 × 10¥7, or 0.5 in a 

million) (A.D. Little, 1991). 

Comment 3: Internal leak test and 

explosion/deflagration experiment. 

The commenter provided a cursory 

description of an internal leak test that 

measured isobutane concentrations 

inside the freezer compartment. The 

commenter concluded that refrigerant 

concentrations inside the freezer 

compartment reached 3.2 percent, 

which exceeds the LFL of 1.8 percent. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78843 

The commenter also described the 

results of a test to reproduce the 

deflagration/explosion when an internal 

leak is ignited. The commenter stated 

that it performed a leakage test 

according to UL 250 on a U.S. market 

refrigerator with original components, 

including the defrost heater, in outdoor 

ambient conditions. The test leaked 57 

grams of refrigerant and used an 

unidentified sparking source to simulate 

a faulty defrost heater connection in the 

freezer compartment. The result was a 

violent explosion that sent heavy 

objects, such as the freezer door, flying 

up to 48 feet high. The commenter 

argued that this demonstrates that 57 

grams of isobutane would produce 

enough energy to result in structural 

damage. 

Response: As was the case for the 

external leak test, the commenter 

provided neither the make and model of 

the refrigerator used, nor a statement 

regarding whether the refrigerator was 

designed specifically to use isobutane. 

Since EPA is requiring all isobutane 

refrigerators to be designed specifically 

for use with flammable refrigerant and 

to comply with Supplement SA of UL 

250 for use of flammable refrigerants, 

results from a test for a non-compliant 

refrigerator would not reflect the risks 

associated with an isobutane refrigerator 

that is in compliance with the use 

conditions in this rule. As previously 

noted, Supplement SA is intended to 

protect against an ignition incident in 

the event of a refrigerant leak. Units that 

are in compliance with Supplement SA 

of UL 250 have passed appropriate 

ignition or leakage tests as stipulated in 

the standard. Passing the leakage test (at 

SA 5.1.2.7 and SA 5.1.3.6) ensures that 

refrigerant concentrations in the event 

of a leak do not reach 75 percent of the 

LFL inside food compartments. 

EPA also notes that the commenter’s 

experiment was meant to simulate a 

worst-case scenario leak. Based on 

industry data in the A.D. Little report, 

the annual probability of a fire or 

explosion inside a given refrigerator is 

2.7 ¥ 10¥13 on average, with a worstcase probability of 7.0 ¥ 10¥12. This 

latter value corresponds to roughly 

0.001 ignition events per year (or 1 

ignition event every 1,000 years) at full 

market penetration (approximately 150 

million refrigerators, according to the 

commenter) under a worst-case 

scenario. We consider this a reasonable 

risk level. Again, we note that the use 

conditions in this final rule should 

further decrease the likelihood of such 

an event occurring, and that these risks 

are small enough not to preclude a 

determination that isobutane is 

acceptable for use subject to the use 

conditions required by this final rule. 

Comment 4: Recall of isobutane 

refrigerators. 

The commenter described a major 

recall of certain models of isobutane 

refrigerators. In 2009 a major consumer 

refrigerator manufacturer announced a 

recall of isobutane refrigerators as a 

result of safety incidents that occurred 

in Asia and Europe. These incidents 

occurred despite the fact that these units 

were specifically designed to operate 

with isobutane, and were designed to 

eliminate potential ignition sources. The 

electrical insulation in the defrost 

mechanism in these units carbonized, 

leading to partial short-circuiting and 

sparking. The sparking corroded the 

adjacent tubing, which resulted in a leak 

of hydrocarbon refrigerant. Isobutane 

concentrations accumulated enough to 

exceed the LFL in the closed refrigerator 

unit. During the next defrost cycle, the 

faulty electrical circuit resulted in 

ignition of the refrigerant and an 

explosion. 

Response: The recall discussed in this 

comment occurred in October 2009 and 

involved approximately 400,000 

refrigerators in South Korea and Europe 

that were manufactured between March 

2005 and June 2006. According to the 

manufacturer, the recall was triggered 

by an October 29, 2009, explosion of an 

isobutane refrigerator in Gyeonggi, 

South Korea. Press accounts also 

discuss a small number of related 

incidents in the United Kingdom and 

Germany between 2006 and 2009. 

Addressing the problem under the recall 

involved home visits to install a safety 

device to prevent the defrost heater from 

overheating. 

EPA notes that this final rule requires 

all isobutane refrigerators to comply 

with the provisions of Supplement SA 

to UL 250. These provisions include 

leakage, ignition, and temperature tests, 

as well as an accelerated aging test of 

heater terminal seals and an insulation 

resistance test of all defrost heaters. 

These tests are not included in the 

standards established by the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) that would have been 

applicable to the appliances under 

recall. 

EPA also notes that more than 400 

million hydrocarbon refrigerator units 

are in use worldwide; in China alone, 

75 percent of new domestic 

refrigerators/freezers use isobutane. 

Refrigerator ignition incidents resulting 

from leaked isobutane appear to be rare 

considering the widespread use of 

hydrocarbon refrigerators worldwide. 

Comment 5: Use of propane in small 

commercial refrigeration systems. 

The commenter includes a brief 

observation that the use of propane in 

small commercial refrigeration systems 

poses risks similar to use of isobutane 

in residential refrigerators. The 

commenter also argues that larger 

hydrocarbon charges pose a higher risk 

of ignition events, and that small 

commercial refrigeration systems are 

known to have much higher leakage 

frequencies and failure rates than 

residential systems. 

Response: As discussed above, EPA 

performed a risk screen on the use of 

propane in small commercial 

refrigeration systems (ICF, 2009b, 

revised as ICF, 2011b), which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. The risk screen indicates 

that propane’s LFL is not reached in the 

retail food refrigeration end-use where 

the charge size does not exceed that 

established by the use conditions. As 

described in the risk screen, under a 

worst-case (catastrophic) release 

scenario the maximum instantaneous 

concentration of propane in the lowest 

stratum of the room would be 

approximately 66 percent of the LFL 

and the concentration in the upper part 

of the room would be lower. Further, 

the SNAP application for this end-use 

pointed out that no catastrophic (‘‘fast’’) 

leaks had been reported from among the 

270,000 hydrocarbon refrigerators in 

operation belonging to the submitter. 

The commenter did not provide 

information to refute EPA’s risk screen 

for retail food refrigeration. EPA’s 

flammability assessment indicates that 

the risk of explosion is extremely small 

in this end-use. 

B. New Equipment Only; Not Intended 

for Use as a Retrofit Alternative 

EPA received ten comments on its 

proposed requirement that hydrocarbon 

refrigerants ‘‘be used only in new 

equipment designed specifically and 

clearly identified for the refrigerant (i.e., 

none of these substitutes may be used as 

a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for 

existing equipment).’’ Nine of the 

commenters supported restricting the 

use of hydrocarbon refrigerants to new 

equipment only. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that retrofitting old household 

refrigerators and freezers and retail food 

refrigerators (stand-alone equipment 

only) be allowed. The commenter 

suggested that safety concerns could be 

alleviated by allowing retrofitting only 

by personnel who are trained to handle 

flammable refrigerants. 

Response: Under the SNAP program, 

an application for SNAP approval 

specifies whether the proposed 

refrigerant use is for new equipment, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

17EPA is referencing Supplement SA 

(‘‘Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers 

Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the 

Refrigerating System’’) from UL Standard 250, 

‘‘Household Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ 10th 

edition. 

18EPA is referencing the UL Standard 471, 9th 

edition Supplement SB; ‘‘Requirements for 

Refrigerators and Freezers. 

19American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Z21.24: Connectors for Gas Appliances. 

20ASHRAE Standard 15–2010: Safety Standard 

for Refrigeration Systems. 

21UL 21: Standard for LP-Gas Hose. 

22EN 378: Refrigerating systems and heat 

pumps—Safety and environmental requirements. 

Prepared by European Committee for 

Standardization/Technical Committee CEN/TC 182 

(Refrigerating systems, safety and environmental 

requirements). 

23 International Organization for Standardization. 

ISO 5149: Mechanical refrigerating systems used for 

cooling and heating—Safety requirements. 

24 IOR (Institute of Refrigeration): Safety code of 

practice for refrigerating systems utilising A2 and 

A3 refrigerants. 

25The Joint Australian Standard/New Zealand 

Standard (AS/NZS) 1677: Addresses safety, design, 

construction, installation, testing, inspection, 

operation and maintenance of refrigeration systems. 

26A. D. Little, 2002. 

27ACRIB, 2001. 

retrofitted equipment, or both. None of 

the submissions applied for use in 

retrofitted equipment. The Agency did 

not conduct a risk analysis for use of the 

substitutes in retrofitted equipment, nor 

did any of the comments provide such 

an analysis. Therefore, EPA is not 

addressing such use at this time. 

EPA would consider whether to find 

hydrocarbon refrigerants acceptable for 

use in retrofitted equipment in the 

future if sufficient evidence, including a 

risk assessment, is provided and shows 

that such use will present risks to 

human health and the environment that 

are lower than or comparable to risks 

from other available substitutes. 

C. Compliance With UL Standards 

EPA received ten sets of comments on 

its proposed requirement that the 

hydrocarbon refrigerants be used only in 

refrigerators or freezers that meet all 

requirements listed in the Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Standard for 

Household Refrigerators and Freezers, 

UL 250 (for the household refrigeration 

end-use) 17 and the UL Standard for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, 

UL 471 (for the retail food refrigeration 

end-use).18 Most commenters supported 

adherence to applicable UL standards, 

although some offered the following 

additional comments. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that a final rule be 

contingent upon the existence and 

acceptance of a comprehensive 

industry-wide safety standard. The 

commenter also suggested that EPA 

could add other standards to the list of 

references addressing the safety of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. The 

commenter referred to ANSI Standard 

Z21.24,19 ASHRAE Standard 15,20 UL 

Standard 21,21 EN 378,22 ISO–5149,23

the IOR Safety Code of Practice for 

Refrigerating Systems Utilising A2 & A3 

Refrigerants,24 and AS/NZS 1677.25

Response: It is unclear what was 

intended by either comment. Regarding 

the first comment, EPA notes that the 

UL standards are in fact industry-wide 

safety standards. UL has tested 

equipment for flammability risk in both 

household and retail food refrigeration. 

UL also has developed acceptable safety 

standards including requirements for 

construction, for marking, and for 

leakage, ignition, and temperature tests, 

as well as an accelerated aging test of 

heater terminal seals and an insulation 

resistance test of all defrost heaters. 

With respect to the second comment, 

it is unclear whether the commenter is 

suggesting that the other standards be 

imposed as use conditions, whether 

they should be included in the ‘‘Further 

Information’’ column of the regulations, 

or whether they should simply be 

described in this preamble. The 

commenter provided no reasoning as to 

why the listed standards should be 

included either as use conditions or in 

the ‘‘Further Information’’ column of the 

regulation, and we are not aware that 

these standards provide any additional 

protections that are not provided by this 

rule. EPA believes that the use 

conditions established in this final rule 

will ensure that these substitutes will 

present risks that are lower than or 

comparable to the risks from other 

available alternatives. 

D. Charge Size Limitation (Household 

Refrigeration) 

EPA received ten comments on its 

proposed charge size limitation of 57 

grams (2.0 ounces) for the household 

refrigeration end-use. 

Comment: Five commenters 

recommended a limit of 150 grams (5.3 

ounces) to correspond to standards 

established by the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 

60335–2–24), including two nongovernmental organizations, a 

manufacturer of refrigerator 

compressors, and two manufacturers of 

household refrigerators and freezers. 

One of these commenters, an 

environmental organization, observed 

that over 400 million refrigerators using 

propane and isobutane refrigerants are 

in use worldwide and that they 

generally are certified to the 150-gram 

international safety standard. The 

commenter stated that EPA has not 

provided a justification for a 57-gram 

charge size limit. 

One commenter, a manufacturer of 

household refrigerators and freezers, 

stated that the 57-gram charge size limit 

in some cases would reduce the 

efficiency of the appliance and raise the 

indirect GHG emissions associated with 

the product’s energy use. Two 

commenters, a manufacturer of 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

an environmental organization, 

observed that the UL 250 standard could 

change in the future and recommended 

that EPA should modify its charge size 

limitation to harmonize with UL 250 as 

it changes over time. 

Three of the commenters supported 

the 57-gram limitation, including a 

manufacturer of household refrigerators 

and freezers that submitted to the SNAP 

program for hydrocarbon refrigerant in 

this end use; a manufacturer of 

commercial refrigerators and freezers 

that submitted to the SNAP program for 

hydrocarbon refrigerant in both 

household and commercial refrigerators 

and freezers; and a manufacturer of 

commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

comments supporting the proposed 

requirement that the charge size not 

exceed 57 grams for household 

refrigeration. UL 250 allows a maximum 

leak amount of 50 grams (1.8 ounces), 

and the submitter used procedures 

outlined in the UL 250 leakage test to 

conclude that up to 7 grams of 

additional refrigerant charge could be 

solubilized in the oil (and assumed not 

to leak or immediately vaporize with the 

refrigerant in the event of a leak). This 

information was reflected in EPA’s risk 

screen for isobutane, which modeled a 

maximum refrigerant release of 50 

grams (ICF, 2009a and ICF, 2011a). 

It is true that hundreds of millions of 

refrigerators and freezers using propane 

and isobutane refrigerants in other 

countries are certified to the IEC 60335– 

2–24 standard, which allows for a 

charge of hydrocarbon refrigerant up to 

150 g. However, available evidence 

suggests that most of these appliances 

actually have charges that are closer to 

57 g than to 150 g. For comparison, a 

typical U.S. household refrigerator using 

HFC–134a has a charge of roughly 140 

g,26 and a charge of isobutane providing 

comparable cooling would be 40 to 50% 

of the charge of HFC–134a,27 or 56 to 70 

g. It is EPA’s understanding that most 

European household refrigerators are 

smaller than the typical U.S. household 

refrigerator and that they use less 

charge; thus, we would expect that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78845 

28 Greenpeace, 1997. 

29A ‘‘sealed system’’ is an independently 

operated refrigeration system, including a 

compressor, evaporator, condenser, metering 

device, and refrigerant not shared for other 

purposes. For example, a refrigerator-freezer might 

employ one sealed system to chill food in the 

refrigerator section and a second sealed system to 

keep food frozen in the freezer compartment. 

‘‘Appliance’’ is defined at 40 CFR 82.152 as ‘‘any 

device which contains and uses a refrigerant and 

which is used for household or commercial 

purposes, including any air conditioner, 

refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.’’ Thus a refrigerator, 

freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer, for 

example, may consist of two appliances provided 

that the refrigerant in the first appliance (i.e., the 

first compressor, condenser, evaporator, and 

metering device) does not mix with the refrigerant 

in the second appliance (e.g., the second 

compressor, condenser, evaporator, and metering 

device). 

European household refrigerators have 

charge sizes less than 70 g. The 

commenter’s own Web site states, 

‘‘[T]oday’s hydrocarbon refrigerators, 

with hermetically sealed compressor 

systems, use between 30 to 70 grams of 

refrigerant, depending on the size of the 

refrigerator.’’ 28 Thus, the safety record 

of hydrocarbon refrigerators and freezers 

in Europe appears to reflect experience 

primarily with charge sizes much 

smaller than 150 g. 

While EPA could assess various 

charge sizes on a theoretical basis, we 

do not have the resources to perform 

product testing and we rely primarily on 

industry, national safety standard 

organizations, and non-governmental 

organizations to conduct tests on 

appliances. UL has tested household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers for safety, 

especially with respect to flammability 

concerns, and the U.S. insurance 

industry and commercial sector rely on 

the results of those tests. Testing by 

manufacturers and UL addresses 

flammability in the manufacturing 

process as well as how the product 

functions with different charge sizes. UL 

developed the 50-gram allowable leak 

limit as the result of testing during 

development of the UL 250 standard for 

household refrigerators and freezers. 

The 50-gram allowable leak limit for 

household refrigerators in UL 250 

differs from the 150-gram allowable leak 

limit for commercial refrigerators and 

freezers in UL 471 due to factors such 

as the difference in the room sizes 

modeled for household versus retail 

appliances. Therefore, building on the 

UL allowance of a 50-gram allowable 

leak limit and the tests performed by the 

submitter, we concluded that the 

maximum charge size should be 57 

grams for the household refrigeration 

end-use. 

EPA did not receive specific 

information concerning the potential 

energy efficiency effects of limiting the 

charge size to 57 g or less. Thus, we are 

not able to judge the technical merits of 

the commenter’s statement. 

EPA does not have sufficient 

information supported by safety testing 

data at this time from other commenters, 

industry, U.S. national safety 

organizations, or non-governmental 

organizations to support a charge size 

limit different from one based on UL 

250, such as the 150-gram limit in IEC 

60335–2–24. EPA understands that the 

limit in UL 250 may change in the 

future. If that occurs, and if the 

appropriate safety testing data is 

submitted to EPA supporting safe use of 

a larger charge, we would consider 

modifying the use conditions at a future 

date. 

We acknowledge that a larger charge 

size may improve the energy efficiency 

of an appliance and simplify its 

construction. However, based on the 

analyses available at this time, we do 

not have sufficient information to 

demonstrate that a larger charge size 

would not create an unacceptable level 

of risk as compared to other available 

substitutes in the household 

refrigeration end-use. As noted above, 

EPA could modify the use conditions in 

the future if sufficient data were 

submitted to support safe use of a larger 

charge size. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

a more precise definition of ‘‘charge,’’ 

recognizing that the exact value of the 

charge depends on the accuracy of the 

charging equipment. 

Response: EPA regulations do not 

provide an accuracy specification or 

interpretation for ‘‘charge’’ or ‘‘charge 

size.’’ EPA believes that such a 

regulatory definition is not necessary for 

purposes of this use condition. EPA 

believes that the wording in the use 

condition (‘‘the quantity of the 

substitute refrigerant’’) provides 

sufficient guidance and that 

manufacturers and service technicians 

have the proper instrumentation and 

training to judge the quantity of 

refrigerant being charged to an 

appliance. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged EPA to clarify or provide a 

test procedure for how manufacturers 

should measure the potential solubility 

of isobutane in the oil. 

Response: Providing such a test 

procedure is beyond the scope of this 

final rule. The use conditions reflect the 

assumption that 7 grams of a 57-gram 

charge could be solubilized in the 

refrigerant oil while still allowing 

compliance with UL 250. The SNAP 

submittal for isobutane in the household 

refrigeration end-use contains 

information on the solubility of 

isobutane with refrigerant oils (GE, 

2008). We typically defer to the 

technical standard-setting agency on 

this type of issue unless there is 

convincing evidence disputing such a 

calculation. Moreover, we note that 

manufacturers that choose to use 

isobutane are not obligated to measure 

its potential solubility in oil for 

purposes of complying with the use 

conditions, since any charge below 50 

grams would be in compliance with UL 

250 and the charge size limitations of 

this rule. Thus we see no reason to 

establish a test procedure for performing 

such an analysis. 

Comment: Two commenters observed 

that an appliance in the household 

refrigeration end-use might incorporate 

more than one sealed system and 

requested that the charge size limitation 

apply to each sealed system in an 

appliance, not to the entire appliance. 

Response: EPA agrees and is 

clarifying that the 57-gram charge size 

limit applies to each sealed system.29 A 

household refrigeration appliance may 

incorporate multiple sealed systems. 

Having multiple sealed systems is less 

of a concern than having a single system 

with the same combined charge since 

the probability of two sealed systems 

leaking simultaneously is very low. In 

addition, hermetically sealed systems 

are less likely to leak, presenting a lower 

probability of fire or explosion. 

Hermetically sealed systems provide an 

increased level of safety in normal use. 

E. Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food 

Refrigeration) 

EPA received seven sets of comments 

on its proposed charge size limitation of 

150 grams (5.3 ounces) for the retail 

food refrigeration end-use. Six 

commenters supported the 150-gram 

limitation, although some offered 

additional comments. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended increasing the limit to 

170 grams for three reasons: first, that 

EPA’s 150-gram limit was calculated 

based on a small European-sized 

kitchen and reflected a 20-percent 

reduction from the LFL; second, that the 

proposed limit was based on domestic 

refrigerator standards and misapplied to 

commercial applications; and third, that 

the UL standard reflects 150 grams of 

leakage and 20 grams that remains in 

the oil and does not leak. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 150- 

gram charge size limit as proposed for 

this end-use. This limit is more 

conservative than the UL 471 standard, 

which reflects a leak amount of 150 

grams (i.e., not counting refrigerant 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

solubilized in oil). Unlike the charge 

limit for the household refrigeration 

end-use, the charge limit for the retail 

food refrigeration end-use does not 

reflect an additional amount of 

refrigerant assumed to be solubilized in 

the oil because SNAP submitters did not 

include test data to support this 

information for propane. UL 471 limits 

the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 

grams, based on testing performed 

during the development of the UL 471 

standard. The commenter provided no 

test data showing that 20 grams (or some 

alternative amount) would be captured 

in the oil if the UL 471 standard were 

applied. Nor was there evidence that the 

leak assumptions for the household 

refrigeration end-use (7 of 57 grams 

solubilized) might apply 

proportionately to other equipment or 

other refrigerants. Therefore, because 

EPA does not have a sufficient analytic 

basis to derive a 170-gram charge size 

limit, EPA has no basis to support a 

change to the 150-gram charge size limit 

we proposed for this end-use. 

Comment: Two commenters also 

observed that the IEC standards may be 

revised upward in the future, and that 

EPA’s limit should reflect such changes. 

Response: The IEC charge size limit 

has not yet increased and EPA cannot 

anticipate the timing or extent of such 

an increase. Further, EPA has not 

received any information showing that a 

larger charge size would ensure that 

propane would present risks in this enduse that are lower than or comparable to 

risks from other potentially available 

substitutes. If the IEC or UL standards 

are revised in the future or if other 

information becomes available that 

would support a change in charge size, 

an interested party could petition EPA 

to revise this aspect of the use 

condition. 

Comment: Another commenter stated 

that appliances manufactured for export 

should be allowed to have a larger 

charge size corresponding to the charge 

size requirements that apply at the point 

of installation. The commenter claims 

that prohibiting a larger charge size for 

export would be a disadvantage for U.S. 

companies selling appliances overseas. 

Response: Under section 612 of the 

Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is 

applicable to any person introducing a 

substitute into interstate commerce. 

Interstate commerce is defined in 40 

CFR 82.104(n) as: 

The distribution or transportation of any 

product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and 

another state, territory, possession or the 

District of Columbia, or the sale, use or 

manufacture of any product in more than one 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia. The entry points for which the 

product is introduced into interstate 

commerce are the release of a product from 

the facility in which the product was 

manufactured, the entry into a warehouse 

from which the domestic manufacturer 

releases the product for sale or distribution, 

and at the site of United States Customs 

clearance. 

This definition applies to any 

appliances produced in the U.S., 

including appliances that will be 

exported. Therefore EPA cannot support 

the comment to apply different use 

conditions based on where an appliance 

is being exported. 

Comment: One commenter observed 

that because an appliance might have 

two or more independent refrigeration 

systems, EPA’s charge size limitation 

should apply to each refrigeration 

system in an appliance and not to each 

appliance. 

Response: EPA received a similar 

comment with respect to the household 

refrigeration end-use, as described in 

Section V.D above. As was the case for 

the household refrigeration end-use, 

EPA agrees that the charge size 

limitation for the retail food 

refrigeration end-use should apply to 

each sealed system in an appliance. EPA 

is modifying the wording of the use 

condition to reflect this clarification. 

F. Labeling 

EPA received 11 sets of comments on 

its proposal to require that ‘‘Danger’’ 

and ‘‘Caution’’ labels be permanently 

attached at specified locations on 

household and retail appliances using 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. The proposed 

wording was identical to that of UL 250 

Supplement SA (household 

refrigeration) and UL 471 Supplement 

SB (retail food refrigeration), except that 

EPA proposed that the lettering be 1⁄4

inch (6.4 mm) rather than the 1⁄8 inch 

(3.2 mm) specified in the UL standards. 

Seven commenters expressed support 

for the proposed labeling use 

conditions, including the lettering size. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that EPA and UL should require the 

same print color and size. Another 

commenter supported the proposal 

except for the language reflecting clause 

(a) in UL 471 (retail food refrigeration) 

for evaporators that can be contacted by 

a consumer; the comment stated that 

evaporators are never accessible to a 

customer in units that are ‘‘cold wall 

design.’’ Finally, one commenter 

specifically opposed use of the words 

‘‘Danger’’ and ‘‘Caution.’’ The 

commenter stated that equipment is safe 

if it meets UL standards, that the words 

would scare consumers, and that service 

technicians know what they are dealing 

with. 

Response: EPA is finalizing the 

labeling use condition as proposed 

(with the exception of a minor technical 

correction to the wording of one of the 

labels, described in Section VI below). 

EPA believes that notification is 

necessary to alert technicians and 

personnel who dispose of or recycle 

appliances that a refrigerant has the 

potential to ignite if a sparking source 

is nearby. This is particularly true 

during the years these products are first 

introduced into the market because 

most technicians in the U.S., as well as 

those involved in the disposal chain, are 

not yet familiar with flammable 

refrigerants. 

EPA consults with UL and other 

national safety standards as often as 

possible, recognizing that the 

organizations differ in functions and 

goals. With the exception of the lettering 

size, EPA is adopting label wording and 

requirements that are identical to those 

in the UL 250 and UL 471 standards. 

The UL standards include a requirement 

to label evaporators in the retail enduse, and EPA is mirroring that 

requirement, noting that even if a 

customer does not have access to the 

labeled area, service technicians with 

such access still need to be made aware 

that a flammable refrigerant is present. 

Regarding the lettering size, EPA 

continues to believe that it would be 

difficult to see warning labels with the 

1⁄8-inch lettering stipulated by UL 250 

and UL 471. Three commenters 

specifically endorsed the 1⁄4-inch 

minimum height proposed, and EPA is 

finalizing that requirement, making it 

easier for technicians, consumers, retail 

store-owners, and emergency first 

responders to see the warning labels. 

G. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping 

EPA received 11 sets of comments on 

its proposed requirement that an 

appliance containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have red Pantone Matching 

System (PMS) #185-marked pipes, 

hoses, and other devices through which 

the refrigerant passes to indicate the use 

of a flammable refrigerant. The color 

would be required at all service ports 

and where service puncturing or 

otherwise creating an opening from the 

refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere 

would be expected to occur, and would 

extend a minimum of 1 inch in both 

directions from such locations. The 

proposed rule observed that no industry 

standard exists for color-coded hoses or 

pipe for flammable refrigerants, and 

sought comment on potential 

development of such a standard. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78847 

30A process tube extends from the compressor 

and is used to add or remove refrigerant. After 

refrigerant is added or removed, the process tube is 

usually pinched to stop refrigerant flow and then 

could be soldered to provide a long-lasting seal. The 

tube is used as an access point for service 

technicians and does not serve any refrigerant-flow 

or heat transfer purposes. 

31The UL Standards referenced in this rule do not 

allow the inclusion of service ports in finished 

products using flammable refrigerants; however, the 

coloring use condition would still apply if a service 

port or access valve were added after the product 

was sold. 

Three commenters supported the 

proposed requirement. One of the 

supporting commenters stated that 

EPA’s use condition would also suffice 

in lieu of an industry standard. Other 

commenters opposed various aspects of 

the color-coding requirement. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

mandatory color-coding would impose a 

burdensome additional cost and is not 

a requirement under international 

standards. A second commenter stated 

that color-coding would be superfluous 

in light of the proposed labeling 

requirement. A third commenter stated 

that leak testing requirements obviate 

the need for color-coding. A fourth 

commenter identified several concerns: 

that hose materials could be potentially 

incompatible with the paint used, that 

the marking could be obscured by ice or 

insulation, and that paint on heat 

exchange surfaces could change the 

thermal resistance and water retention 

properties of the heat exchanger, 

affecting performance. 

Other commenters recommended a 

more precise interpretation of the 

requirement to ensure that color-coding 

need only be provided where beneficial 

and not in locations where system 

performance could be hindered. One 

commenter observed that coloring all 

tubing would be costly and that 

locations should be selected that do not 

present problems for sealing of valves or 

for operational efficiency. Another 

commenter suggested that since UL 471 

already requires labels near the 

compressor, coloring would only be 

necessary at discharge and charge 

locations. The commenter further stated 

that self-contained units with one 

compressor only need markings at two 

locations—at the filling tube and after 

the filter dryer (in the flow direction)— 

because such units only use one 

refrigerant and present no risk of 

mixing. 

Several commenters observed that an 

equally effective and less costly option 

for some manufacturers might be to use 

a colored sleeve or cap that must be 

forcibly removed in order to access the 

service tube. If a manufacturer removed 

the sleeve or cap during service, a 

similar replacement would be required. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a 

requirement to use red PMS #185 

coloring on hoses and tubing. This is the 

same color specified in AHRI Guideline 

N–2008, ‘‘Assignment of Refrigerant 

Container Colors,’’ to identify containers 

of flammable refrigerant, such as 

propane, isobutane, and R–441A (AHRI, 

2008). The purpose of the colored hoses 

and tubing in this case is to enable 

service technicians to identify the use of 

a flammable refrigerant and to take 

additional precautions (e.g., reducing 

the use of sparking equipment) as 

appropriate to avert accidents, and 

particularly in the event that labels are 

no longer legible. The air-conditioning 

and refrigeration industry currently uses 

distinguishing colors to identify 

different refrigerants. Likewise, 

distinguishing coloring is used 

elsewhere to indicate an unusual and 

potentially dangerous situation, such as 

the use of orange-insulated wires in 

hybrid electric vehicles. In the U.S., 

household and retail appliances contain 

various refrigerants and it is not always 

clear what type of refrigerant an 

appliance uses. 

Since red coloring is understood to 

represent ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘stop,’’ or ‘‘danger,’’ 

red coloring will provide technicians, 

consumers, and emergency responders 

with an unambiguous signal that a 

potential hazard is present. The labeling 

requirement discussed in Section V.F 

will complement the color-coding 

requirement by providing a more 

precise warning of the potential hazards 

and necessary precautions. Further, it is 

possible that labels, particularly those 

on the outside of the appliance, may fall 

off or become illegible over time; adding 

red coloring on tubing inside the 

appliance provides additional assurance 

that technicians will be aware that a 

flammable refrigerant is present. 

In response to concerns about the 

location of the color-coding, EPA is 

modifying the language for this use 

condition to reflect its intent more 

precisely. Instead of requiring PMS #185 

coloration at all locations ‘‘through 

which the refrigerant passes,’’ this final 

rule requires coloration at locations 

‘‘through which the refrigerant is 

serviced,’’ as well as areas where service 

puncturing or otherwise creating an 

opening from the refrigerant circuit to 

the atmosphere might be expected. EPA 

is also clarifying the location and extent 

of the coloring on the hose or process 

tube (if one exists).30 This does not 

mean that the entire hose or process 

tube must be colored. Rather, for 

process tubes the tube must be colored 

for at least one inch with the red mark 

to extend from the compressor. This 

way, if the process tube is cut for 

service, the red marking still remains 

after the tube is welded back together. 

If further servicing would leave the 

colored portion of the process tube less 

than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) long, a 

new process tube would be required, 

with the red marking as described 

above. For other locations—for example, 

if a service port or refrigerant access 

valve is added to the system 31—the red 

mark must extend at least 1 inch in all 

directions from the port or valve. 

To clarify that the red coloring must 

always be present (not just applied 

initially at installation), we are 

providing more specificity in the 

language of the use condition than 

proposed. We are changing ‘‘must be 

applied’’ to ‘‘must be present’’ to correct 

any misperceptions that once the 

coloring is initially placed (‘‘applied’’) 

at a location, it need not be replaced if 

damaged or removed. The word 

‘‘present’’ conveys that the red coloring 

must always be at the specified location. 

EPA does not believe that this 

requirement will impose a burdensome 

additional cost. The only commenter to 

raise this point did not provide any 

information about what such costs 

might be and why the commenter 

thought they would be burdensome. In 

this preamble we are clarifying one 

aspect of flexibility that could mitigate 

potential cost concerns. Specifically, 

EPA agrees with the commenters’ 

observation that a colored sleeve or cap 

could be equally effective and may offer 

a less costly option for some 

manufacturers. The proposed rule 

specified the type, location, and 

dimensions of the coloration but did not 

specify the physical manner in which 

the tube should be colored. EPA 

believes that the use of a sleeve or cap 

is consistent with this use condition as 

long as the requirements of the use 

condition (use of PMS #185, location, 

and dimension) are met. However, in 

order to remain in compliance with the 

use condition, a technician who 

removes a sleeve during servicing is 

required to replace that sleeve on the 

serviced tube with another. Allowing 

the use of a sleeve instead of paint will 

also help alleviate the concern 

expressed by one commenter over the 

potential incompatibility of red paint 

with hose materials. 

EPA recognizes that labeling is 

another way to provide warning of the 

presence of a flammable refrigerant, 

and—as discussed in Section V.F 

above—is finalizing a labeling 

requirement. However, since over time 

labels can come off or become illegible, 

labeling should not be the sole means of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

alerting users and service technicians of 

the presence of a flammable refrigerant. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the proposed color-coding requirement 

but pointed out that the American 

Academy of Ophthalmology and the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention report that 8 percent of 

American males are color-blind, 

primarily in the colors green and red, 

making the need for labels even more 

important. 

Response: The Agency recognizes that 

there is a color-blind population. This is 

one reason to use both labeling and 

coloring to signal that a flammable 

refrigerant is being used. 

H. Unique Fittings 

EPA received 13 sets of comments on 

its proposed requirement that 

appliances using isobutane or R–441A 

in household refrigeration and propane 

in retail food refrigeration end-uses have 

service aperture fittings that differ from 

fittings used in equipment or containers 

using non-flammable refrigerant. The 

proposed rule defined ‘‘differ’’ to mean 

that either the diameter must differ by 

at least 1/16 inch or the thread direction 

must be reversed (i.e., right-handed vs. 

left-handed). The proposed rule 

specified that these different fittings 

must be permanently affixed to the unit 

and may not be accessed with an 

adaptor until the end-of-life of the unit. 

Comments: Twelve commenters 

opposed the proposed requirement for 

various combinations of the following 

reasons: Adding fittings at the time of 

manufacture is not appropriate for 

certain appliance types; additional 

fittings presents an increased leak risk; 

the requirement could be easily 

circumvented; the risk of crosscontamination is overstated; 

international standards do not require 

unique fittings; and the requirement 

would be inconsistent with UL 

standards. One commenter, while 

neither supporting nor opposing the 

proposal, stated that if unique fittings 

are installed they should require the use 

of special tools to dissuade 

unauthorized personnel from opening 

the fittings. 

Response: EPA is persuaded by the 

comments opposing a use condition to 

require unique fittings. The Agency is 

removing the requirement for unique 

fittings from the list of use conditions 

and is instead providing a 

recommendation for unique fittings in 

the ‘‘Further Information’’ column of 

Appendix R. The following paragraphs 

describe the comments and EPA’s 

response in more detail. 

Comments: Most commenters 

interpreted the language of the proposed 

requirement to mean that all appliances 

subject to this rule must be 

manufactured with unique fittings, even 

appliances that would not require 

servicing and thus would otherwise not 

need fittings. They observed that 

household and retail appliances, 

whether they use hydrocarbons or 

another type of refrigerant, typically are 

hermetically sealed and are 

manufactured without maintenance 

fittings or service valves. They pointed 

out that any service port with a 

mechanical connection (such as a lock 

ring) presents a leak risk and that 

requiring additional service ports for the 

purpose of installing unique fittings 

would add to that risk. One commenter 

also observed that equipment is highly 

sensitive to charge size and any leak 

could cause malfunction or failure. (The 

commenter stated that in its past 

experience, three-fourths of service calls 

were related to service ports.) One 

commenter observed that the presence 

of service ports could create incentives 

for untrained technicians to attempt 

servicing. Another commenter pointed 

out that UL 250 and UL 471 prohibit 

refrigerators or freezers that use a 

flammable refrigerant from employing 

quick-connect fittings, flare fittings, 

compression fittings, or packed stem 

valves. 

Response: EPA agrees with statements 

that a service valve installed at the point 

of manufacture could increase the 

likelihood of leaks for these types of 

appliances. We recognize from the 

comments that the proposed 

requirement was worded in an overly 

broad manner. We intended the 

requirement to apply only in cases 

where a service port or other connection 

is installed subsequent to manufacture. 

EPA is aware that the UL 250 and UL 

471 standards forbid such ports at the 

time of manufacture on units using 

flammable refrigerants. EPA recognizes 

that service ports (whether with 

standard or unique fittings) are not 

normally used in household 

refrigerators or stand-alone retail food 

refrigerators and freezers. 

However, CAA 608(b)(2) requires all 

small appliances containing ODS 

refrigerants to be equipped with service 

ports that allow for the proper recovery 

of refrigerant during service or disposal 

of refrigerators and freezers because 

service ports act as an access point for 

recovery equipment. Under 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1), no refrigerant or substitute 

may be knowingly vented unless 

otherwise exempted. For this reason 

most hermetically sealed appliances are 

equipped with process tubes that are 

used only for end-of-life recovery and 

which typically do not leak. 

EPA does believe, however, that some 

hermetically sealed systems eventually 

will be serviced and does not assume 

that such systems are always completely 

leak-proof. Therefore EPA continues to 

believe that if a service port or access 

valve is installed after manufacture, it 

should employ a unique fitting that is 

maintained until the end-of-life of the 

appliance. 

One commenter specifically 

supported a requirement for unique 

fittings after the equipment is serviced 

and for the remainder of its life. EPA 

believes that such fittings, if installed, 

should be designed specifically for 

flammable refrigerants, such that those 

fittings would not connect to service 

equipment designed for non-flammable 

refrigerants. 

Comment: Several commenters 

observed that cross-contamination was 

not a significant risk. Two commenters 

stated that requiring unique fittings 

would not necessarily protect against 

cross-contamination. One commenter 

stated that mixing of hydrocarbons and 

other refrigerants would not pose a 

safety concern unless air or oxygen were 

present. Another commenter asserted 

that since self-contained refrigerant 

systems use only one refrigerant, there 

is no possibility that an appliance 

would be refilled with an incorrect 

refrigerant. That commenter also stated 

that proper refrigerant practices are in 

place that require separate recovery 

cylinders for different refrigerants, that 

technicians need only use one more 

type of cylinder, and that economic 

incentives can foster proper recovery 

practices. 

Response: Overall, EPA disagrees 

with the comment that crosscontamination is unlikely. Depending 

on the type of equipment being 

serviced, and its typical servicing 

patterns, it is quite possible that 

refrigerants could be mixed, particularly 

where best practices are not employed. 

Currently, many different refrigerants 

are used in refrigerators and freezers. 

Technicians are likely to encounter 

numerous refrigerants—now including 

hydrocarbons—raising the possibility 

that flammable refrigerants could be 

mixed with non-flammable refrigerants 

or that flammable refrigerants could be 

added to an appliance designed for nonflammable refrigerants. Not only does 

the mixing of refrigerants pose a risk for 

the cooling system of the appliance, it 

also can limit reclamation options. 

Whereas—as observed by two 

commenters—pure refrigerants have 

market value, contaminated refrigerants 

are costly to re-purify into their 

individual refrigerant components, and 

costly to discard properly, raising the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78849 

32As mentioned previously, the proposed rule 

inadvertently represented 5 pounds as 2.8 

kilograms instead of 2.3 kg, which is accurate. 

risk of illegal venting. Nevertheless, 

EPA agrees with the commenters that 

cross-contamination itself does not pose 

safety issues sufficient to warrant a 

mandatory requirement for unique 

fittings. 

Comment: Several commenters 

observed that technicians could defeat 

the intent of the requirement by using 

other kinds of fittings after first service. 

One commenter stated that service 

technicians have the tools to bypass 

unique fittings and would do so rather 

than purchase additional gauges and 

line sets to service the small number of 

hydrocarbon refrigerators. Another 

stated that most small appliances do not 

have fittings (unique or otherwise) and 

that technicians and the public could 

use line-piercing fittings if needed. 

Response: EPA understands that a 

requirement for unique fittings would 

not prevent illegal or improper efforts to 

service appliances if a technician were 

determined to do so. The ‘‘Further 

Information’’ section in the regulation 

recommends that only technicians 

specifically trained in handling 

flammable refrigerants service 

refrigerators and freezers containing 

these refrigerants, and that technicians 

gain an understanding of minimizing 

the risk of fire and the steps to use 

flammable refrigerants safely. We note 

that, in addition to preventing the 

mixing of refrigerants, the proposed use 

condition was intended to reduce the 

risk of fire by ensuring that flammable 

refrigerants are used only in appliances 

designed for flammable refrigerants. The 

proposed use condition was intended to 

prevent a technician from inadvertently 

attempting to service a refrigerator as if 

it contained non-flammable refrigerant 

when it actually contained highly 

flammable hydrocarbon refrigerant, or 

vice versa. 

Comment: Four commenters stated 

that education is the best tool to prevent 

refrigerant contamination. One 

suggested creating a nationwide training 

program; the other, which specializes in 

training, observed that training had 

proven to be an effective option in lieu 

of a previous proposal to require unique 

fittings for high-pressure HFC 

refrigerants. 

Response: EPA supports the concept 

of a national training program for 

flammable refrigerants and welcomes 

industry efforts to educate technicians 

on proper refrigerant use and proper 

service and disposal practices. 

I. Small Containers 

EPA received nine comments on the 

proposed use condition to limit the sale 

of the hydrocarbon refrigerants in 

containers designed to hold less than 

five pounds (2.3 kg).32 This requirement 

was intended to prevent purchase by 

untrained people who lack the skills or 

equipment necessary to recover and 

charge refrigerant properly. Six 

commenters supported the proposed 

requirement. Other comments are 

discussed below. 

Comment: Three commenters 

opposed this requirement, stating that a 

small-container sales restriction was not 

the appropriate vehicle to compel 

proper training. One observed that 

properly trained technicians know how 

to handle refrigerants safely; another 

noted that the proposed rule 

protections, such as labeling, would 

help mitigate the potential risk 

associated with technician error; and 

the third observed that untrained 

customers can already buy camping gas, 

which is a flammable gas like isobutane. 

In addition, one of the commenters 

opposing the requirement stated that it 

would pose practicality and logistics 

problems for its service network for 

household refrigerators. The commenter 

stated that a five-pound minimum 

requirement would result in the 

transport of more combustibles in a 

service vehicle than needed and that it 

would be preferable to use ‘‘rightsizing’’ canisters containing the exact 

charge for the particular appliance to 

ensure efficient and accurate service, to 

minimize the load a technician needs to 

carry, and to prevent under- and overcharging. 

Response: After considering the 

comments received, EPA is removing 

the small-container sales restriction 

from the use conditions. EPA agrees that 

requiring the sale of the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in containers 

of at least five pounds could cause the 

transport of an unnecessary amount of 

refrigerant and increase risks to service 

technicians and—in the event of a 

vehicular accident—to others on the 

road. EPA intended the proposed use 

condition to prevent or minimize the 

purchase of refrigerant by untrained 

people who would not have the 

appropriate skills or equipment to 

properly recover or charge the 

refrigerant. However, after considering 

the comments, EPA recognizes that an 

unintended consequence of restricting 

smaller-container sales is the prospect 

that appliance owners could purchase 

non-refrigerant-grade propane such as 

camping gas to service their equipment. 

Non-refrigerant-grade hydrocarbons 

could contain contaminants that might 

fail to be absorbed by a filter drier, mix 

with the oil and cause high wear on 

compressor bearings, or clog heat 

exchangers and capillary tubes. Such 

events could lead to equipment failure, 

increased servicing need, and more 

potential emissions of the refrigerant. 

These effects could increase risk to the 

appliance owner, service technicians, 

and those involved in appliance 

disposal. 

As discussed in Section V.K of this 

preamble, EPA agrees with the 

importance of having hydrocarbon 

refrigerants handled only by trained 

technicians. The listing decisions for 

these three refrigerants in Appendix R 

to 40 CFR, part 82, subpart G, provide 

a recommendation that only technicians 

specifically trained in handling 

flammable refrigerants service 

refrigerators and freezers containing 

these refrigerants. We also include a 

recommendation that technicians gain 

an understanding of minimizing the risk 

of fire and the steps to use flammable 

refrigerants safely. 

J. Use of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in 

Other End-Uses 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested that isobutane and propane be 

considered for use in both the 

household refrigeration and retail food 

refrigeration end-uses. Six other 

commenters specifically requested that 

isobutane be allowed for use in retail 

food refrigeration. All of these 

commenters reasoned that both 

refrigerants have similar physical 

characteristics (e.g., flammability limits, 

toxicity profiles, handling practices, 

safety group classification) and that the 

UL 250 and UL 471 standards do not 

distinguish between them. 

Response: EPA is finalizing 

acceptability determinations only for 

the substitutes and end-uses identified 

in submissions to the Agency and in the 

proposed rule: Isobutane and R–441A in 

the household refrigeration end-use, and 

propane in the retail food refrigeration 

end-use. The submitters did not request 

review of isobutane or R–441A in the 

retail food refrigeration end-use, or 

propane in the household refrigeration 

end-use, so EPA did not review those 

substitutes for those end-uses in this 

rulemaking. 

The SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart G establish a process for the 

submission and review of SNAP 

applications and the finalization of 

acceptability determinations. EPA 

makes a listing determination after 

evaluation of the substitute. EPA 

follows a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process to list substitutes 

that are proposed as acceptable subject 

to use conditions, acceptable subject to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

narrowed use limits, or unacceptable. 

Although EPA can issue SNAP 

determinations for substitutes and enduses that were not provided by an 

applicant, the Agency must perform the 

same detailed analysis, based on the 

criteria described in the SNAP 

regulations. EPA would need to make a 

risk screen available to the public 

through the notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process before making a 

listing decision. If EPA were to find 

those substitutes acceptable in those 

specific end-uses, use conditions would 

probably be necessary. 

We recognize the stakeholders’ 

interest in using isobutane in the retail 

food refrigeration end-use and propane 

in the household refrigeration end-use. 

Preliminary information supports the 

observations that the use profiles and 

handling practices for these chemicals 

in these end-uses are very similar to the 

combinations of substitutes and enduses being finalized today. EPA may 

consider a subsequent rulemaking 

addressing the use of isobutane and R– 

441A in the retail food refrigeration enduse, and propane in the household 

refrigeration end-use. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

it did not have sufficient information on 

HCR–188C and HCR–188C1 (i.e., R– 

441A) to recommend their approval for 

the retail food refrigeration end-use. The 

commenter stated, however, that if 

ASHRAE Standard 34 were to classify 

those hydrocarbon blends as A3 

refrigerants then the argument could be 

made that they should be listed in both 

end-uses. 

Response: In February 2011, ASHRAE 

issued Addendum g to Standard 34– 

2010, classifying R–441A as an A3 

refrigerant. We agree that an applicant 

may be able to support a petition to find 

R–441A acceptable subject to use 

conditions in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use based on our 

current understanding that R–441A has 

characteristics that are similar to those 

of propane. However, we do not 

currently have the appropriate technical 

demonstrations before us to propose, 

much less finalize, such a 

determination. If in the future a person 

submits a petition supported by a 

technical demonstration, we could take 

rulemaking action on such a listing. 

K. Training 

EPA received eight comments in 

response to its discussion of training in 

the preamble of the proposed rule. All 

acknowledged the value of training. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended against a mandatory 

national training program, observing 

that in the European Union, where 

hydrocarbon refrigerants are more 

prevalent, there is no national training 

program and each manufacturer handles 

training on its own. Another 

commenter, a training organization for 

technicians, suggested that training be a 

required element of a federal 

certification of technicians. The 

commenter noted that EPA intends to 

update the ‘‘test bank’’ of test questions 

for technician certification under CAA 

section 608, and so the Agency should 

recognize the merits of incorporating 

hydrocarbon refrigerants into existing 

programs. This commenter stated that 

without a recertification program, 

hundreds of thousands of technicians 

will not see the new test questions. 

Therefore the commenter suggested that 

EPA either create another ‘‘type’’ 

category of certification under CAA 

section 608 addressing flammable 

refrigerants and/or require 

recertification of technicians every five 

years because of new refrigerants. One 

commenter stated that EPA should 

strongly consider delaying any SNAP 

acceptability listing for isobutane until 

such a program can be developed and 

deployed industry-wide. The 

commenter observed that this could take 

two years and increase costs to 

consumers. 

Response: EPA agrees that training is 

an important way for technicians to 

learn about the safe handling of 

flammable refrigerants. We recognize 

that there are some long-standing 

training programs on flammable 

refrigerants in other countries where 

hydrocarbon refrigerants are currently 

in wide use. We also recognize that the 

use of hydrocarbon refrigerants, and 

training on such use, is in its infancy in 

the U.S., and is generally tied directly 

to specific products or applications, 

rather than generally to multiple types 

of products. 

Since the inception of the SNAP 

program and the section 608 refrigerant 

management program, we have 

continued to list a variety of new 

refrigerants as acceptable. EPA has not 

previously required that certified 

technicians be recertified as a result of 

the listing of the additional refrigerants. 

Moreover, the goals of the section 608 

technician certification program reflect 

the need to reduce emissions during 

servicing, maintenance, repair and 

disposal. They do not substitute for the 

proper training that is normally 

provided through trade schools, 

apprenticeships, or other industry 

mechanisms. Given the extent of 

technical knowledge available within 

the industry, we believe that industry is 

better equipped than EPA to define the 

specific contents of such training, and 

that it is not necessary for EPA to 

require training in order for newly listed 

refrigerants to be used as safely as other 

refrigerants currently available. 

Although we have determined not to 

require training as a use condition for 

these substitutes to ensure that they can 

be used as safely as other available 

refrigerants, we recommend that 

technicians receive training on the safe 

handling of hydrocarbon refrigerants 

through avenues such as industrysponsored national training programs. 

L. Other Options Considered 

EPA considered, and sought comment 

on, several other options or related 

issues in the proposed rule, although we 

did not propose them. This section 

describes comments the Agency 

received on those options. 

1. Use only in appliances specific to 

OEMs. EPA sought comment on an 

option that would allow isobutane and 

propane as a refrigerant for use only in 

OEM-specific appliances, as described 

in a SNAP application. The reason for 

such a limitation would be the concern 

that appliances from other 

manufacturers would not be designed 

with spark-proof engineering; nor would 

the manufacturers be able to develop 

recovery equipment compatible with 

flammable refrigerants. 

Comment: EPA received two 

comments supporting EPA’s approach 

to not impose such a limitation. One 

observed that limiting use to SNAPreviewed equipment would be timeconsuming and costly for all parties 

involved, with little added health and 

safety benefit. 

Response: EPA agrees that limiting 

refrigerant use to SNAP-reviewed 

equipment would be time-consuming 

and costly for all parties involved. We 

believe that adherence to the UL 

standards and the use conditions in this 

rule will help ensure that equipment is 

designed to use these refrigerants safely, 

and that use of these substitutes will 

present risks that are lower than or 

comparable to the risks from other 

potential substitutes. Thus we believe it 

is not necessary to include such a 

limitation. 

2. Recovery equipment. EPA observed 

that it had considered proposing a use 

condition requiring that recovery 

equipment used to recapture flammable 

refrigerants be compatible with 

flammable refrigerants, and sought 

information on whether there currently 

is an industry standard for recovery 

units for flammable refrigerants and 

whether specific recovery units are 

available that are compatible with the 

refrigerants addressed in today’s rule. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78851 

Comment: One commenter stated a 

belief that there are no known 

manufacturers of recovery equipment 

for hydrocarbon refrigerants. Another 

commenter stated that recovery 

equipment used to recover flammable 

refrigerants must be compatible with 

flammable refrigerants, and in the 

absence of an industry standard, it has 

developed its own service equipment 

designed to recapture a flammable 

refrigerant in accordance with federal 

and state regulations. A third 

commenter observed that recovery units 

are only used in countries like the U.S. 

where venting is not allowed. Finally, 

one commenter observed that it uses a 

recovery device in its U.S. test market 

that is specifically designed for use with 

flammable refrigerants. 

Response: The availability of recovery 

equipment is not necessary to ensure 

that the refrigerant will not pose more 

risk than other available substitutes in 

this end-use. EPA will continue to 

assess the need for, and availability of, 

recovery equipment that is compatible 

with flammable refrigerants. 

3. Venting prohibition. EPA sought 

comment on whether, in a future 

rulemaking, it should consider 

exempting hydrocarbon refrigerants 

from the section 608 venting 

prohibition. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed varying levels of support for 

exempting hydrocarbon refrigerants 

from the venting prohibition. Two 

commenters expressed unequivocal 

support, and four stated that they would 

support such an exemption if EPA were 

to confirm there would be no health 

impact. Another commenter asserted 

that venting would pose little 

environmental impact, comparing the 

worst-case scenario release of 150 grams 

from retail food refrigeration end-uses, 

or 57 grams from household 

refrigeration end-uses, to one and onethird pound, respectively, of CO2

equivalent. Another commenter stated 

that isobutane is not dangerous, but 

should not be vented in enclosed 

spaces. Another commenter supported a 

venting exemption during servicing, but 

advocated recovery at end-of-life due to 

environmental risks associated with the 

release of refrigerant and oil captured in 

the refrigerant. Finally, a commenter 

stated that the environmental impact 

from venting such small charges is 

minimal and that safety concerns could 

be better mitigated through a properly 

designed and executed educational 

program. One commenter expressed 

reservations about allowing venting, and 

recommended further assessment of 

flammability risks as well as the 

potential risk associated with the release 

of synthetic refrigerant oil during 

venting. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

information provided by commenters. 

Venting is addressed by section 608 of 

the CAA and EPA will develop a 

separate rule under that authority if we 

determine that hydrocarbon refrigerants 

in the household refrigeration and retail 

food refrigeration end-uses should be 

exempted from the venting prohibition. 

EPA exercised such authority to exempt 

hydrocarbons used in industrial process 

refrigeration systems from the venting 

prohibition (see 69 FR 11946), but has 

not made a similar determination for 

hydrocarbons used in household and 

retail food refrigerators and freezers. 

Currently, EPA’s regulations 

implementing section 608 at subpart F 

to 40 CFR part 82 would prohibit 

venting of isobutane, propane, and R– 

441A refrigerants during service, 

maintenance, repair, and disposal from 

the end-uses considered in this rule. 

4. Requiring only one use condition. 

EPA sought comment on an approach 

that it considered (but did not propose): 

to require that the only use condition for 

each hydrocarbon refrigerant be to meet 

applicable UL 250 and UL 471 

standards. 

Comment: EPA received one 

comment, which opposed such a 

provision. 

Response: As described above, and 

consistent with the proposal, EPA has 

not limited the use conditions to 

compliance with the UL standards. 

5. ‘‘Unacceptable’’ finding pending 

industry-wide servicing standards. EPA 

sought comment on (but did not 

propose) finding hydrocarbon 

refrigerants unacceptable until an 

industry-wide standard exists for 

servicing appliances using hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. 

Comment: EPA received two 

comments on this issue, one opposing 

and one supporting. Neither commenter 

provided a rationale for its 

recommendation. 

Response: As described elsewhere, 

and consistent with the proposal, EPA 

is finding the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerants acceptable subject to use 

conditions. 

M. Other Comments on Proposed Rule 

Comment: In a comment unrelated to 

the specifics of the proposed rule, one 

commenter recommended consideration 

of the type of automated system it uses 

on its production line. This system 

sounds a pre-warning alarm when 20 

percent of the LFL is reached and shuts 

down the system if 40 percent of the 

LFL is reached. The commenter noted 

that this system conforms to the 

European standard and is approved by 

TUV (Technischer U ̈ berwachungsVerein (Technical Inspection 

Association)), a German safety 

monitoring agency. 

Response: EPA does not believe it is 

necessary to establish a use condition 

requiring the type of system suggested 

by the commenter. OSHA addresses the 

use of flammable substances in the 

workplace, including through its 

regulations at 29 CFR 1910.106, as 

discussed in response to other 

comments below. To the extent a 

manufacturer believes that additional 

precautions are appropriate, we believe 

the manufacturer is in the best position 

to determine how to address the risks of 

installing a hydrocarbon refrigerant 

considering the specific characteristics 

of its production facilities and 

personnel. We note that in addition to 

OSHA requirements, other forces such 

as concerns for liability; costs of fire and 

casualty insurance; and reputational 

interests may also dictate a firm’s 

behavior with respect to worker health 

and safety protections. 

This final rule includes, in the 

‘‘Further Information’’ column of 

Appendix R, recommendations that 

OEMs institute safety precautions as 

needed in their facilities to address 

potential hazards in the production of 

appliances using hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. EPA notes that OSHA 

regulations are in place to address such 

hazards. The table in Appendix M 

references OSHA requirements at 29 

CFR part 1910, including those at 29 

CFR 1910.106 (flammable and 

combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage 

and handling of liquefied petroleum 

gases), and 1910.1000 (toxic and 

hazardous substances). Nothing in these 

final listing decisions, including the 

‘‘Further Information’’ column, 

supersedes other regulations such as 

these OSHA requirements. 

Comment: Another commenter 

recommended that the use conditions in 

the final rule address the use of an 

odorant as a warning agent to alert 

manufacturing personnel or technicians 

of the presence of a leak. Without 

recommending how the issue should be 

addressed in this final rule, the 

commenter offered the following 

observations: 

• Technicians or manufacturers may 

use mercaptan as an odor warning 

agent; 

• Mercaptan is corrosive and is 

removed by filters and driers in 

refrigeration systems; 

• Refrigerant classification standards 

for Australia and New Zealand require 

that Group A3 refrigerants be odorized 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

33OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.110 consider 

ventilation adequate ‘‘when the concentration of the 

gas in a gas-air mixture does not exceed 25 percent 

of the lower flammable limit.’’ 

or subject to alternative safety 

provisions. 

Response: EPA agrees that odorization 

is one way to alert manufacturing or 

servicing personnel of the presence of a 

hydrocarbon refrigerant. EPA’s risk 

screen did not evaluate these 

refrigerants with the addition of an 

odorant, nor did our proposed rule 

address odorants in its discussion of 

refrigerant composition or in its 

proposed use conditions. Today’s final 

rule does not prohibit the introduction 

of an odorant into isobutane, propane, 

or R–441A refrigerant as long as the 

refrigerant remains within purity 

specifications. The use conditions in 

today’s final rule, such as red coloring 

and adherence to UL standards, provide 

ample safeguards to alert manufacturers, 

service personnel, and customers of the 

presence of a flammable refrigerant. 

VI. What other changes is EPA making 

in the final rule? 

In addition to changes made in 

response to comments, as described in 

Section V above, EPA is making the 

following minor changes: 

A. Propane as Substitute for R–502 

EPA is revising the wording in the 

Appendix R table to correct a 

typographical error. As discussed above, 

this final rule lists propane as 

acceptable subject to use conditions as 

a substitute for CFC–12, HCFC–22, and 

R–502 in the retail food refrigeration 

end-use. In the NPRM, the proposed 

Appendix R table erroneously omitted 

R–502 (a blend of HCFC–22 and CFC– 

115) from the listing, although it was 

included in the preamble discussion. 

This final rule corrects the error by 

including R–502 as one of the 

refrigerants for which propane is listed 

as a substitute in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use. 

B. Wording of Use Conditions for 

Labeling 

The use conditions in the proposed 

rule included requirements for marking 

(e.g., labeling) of appliances using 

isobutane and HCR–188C1 (i.e., R– 

441A) in the household refrigeration 

end-use, and propane in the retail food 

refrigeration end-use. EPA intended that 

language to mirror that of the UL 

standards. We are making two minor 

changes to this requirement. 

First, we are restructuring the 

language for the requirement. The 

language of the proposed rule first listed 

the wording required for five different 

types of labels, and then described 

where each of the labels was to be 

placed. For the final rule, we have 

moved the location requirements, so 

they are specified immediately before 

the corresponding label wording. EPA 

believes this minor revision in the 

regulatory language provides more 

clarity and makes the use condition 

easier to implement. 

Second, EPA is making a minor 

technical correction to the wording of 

one of the labels. In the proposed rule, 

one of the labels was to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) Near the machine compartment: 

‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not 

Use Mechanical Devices. To Be 

Repaired Only By Trained Service 

Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant 

Tubing.’’ 

The phrase ‘‘Do Not Use Mechanical 

Devices’’ was included erroneously in 

the proposed requirement. EPA 

recognizes that trained personnel may 

need to use mechanical devices to 

service the machine compartment. We 

have removed that phrase from the use 

condition in the final listing decision, 

making the condition consistent with 

the UL 250 and UL 471 requirements. 

C. ‘‘Further Information’’ Column in 

Listing Decisions 

EPA is also modifying the 

recommendations listed under ‘‘Further 

Information’’ to more appropriately 

cross-reference existing OSHA 

regulations and to avoid confusion 

about the relationship between EPA and 

OSHA requirements. 

The proposed rule contained, under 

‘‘Further Information,’’ the following 

recommendations: 

• Technicians and equipment 

manufacturers should wear appropriate 

personal protective equipment, 

including chemical goggles and 

protective gloves when handling 

isobutane, HCR–188C, and HCR–188C1. 

Special care should be taken to avoid 

contact with the skin since isobutane, 

HCR–188C, and HCR–188C1 like many 

refrigerants, can cause freeze burns on 

the skin. 

• A class B dry powder type fire 

extinguisher should be kept nearby. 

• Proper ventilation should be 

maintained at all times during the 

manufacture of appliances containing 

hydrocarbon refrigerant through 

adherence to good manufacturing 

practices as per 29 CFR 1910.110.33 If 

refrigerant levels in the air surrounding 

the equipment rise above one-fourth of 

the lower flammability limit, the space 

should be evacuated, and re-entry 

should only occur after the space has 

been properly ventilated. 

• Technicians should only use sparkproof tools when working refrigerators 

and freezers with R–600a, HCR–188C, 

and HCR–188C1. 

• Recovery equipment designed for 

flammable refrigerants should be used. 

• Only technicians specifically 

trained in handling flammable 

refrigerants should service refrigerators 

and freezers containing these 

refrigerants. Technicians should gain an 

understanding of minimizing the risk of 

fire and the steps to use flammable 

refrigerants safely. 

• In production facilities or other 

facilities where large quantities of the 

refrigerant would be stored, proper 

safety precautions should be in place to 

minimize the risk of explosion. These 

facilities should be equipped with 

proper ventilation systems to minimize 

the risks of explosion and should be 

properly designed and operated to 

reduce possible ignition sources. 

• Room occupants should evacuate 

the space immediately following the 

accidental release of this refrigerant. 

The Agency did not receive any 

comments on these recommendations. 

EPA believes that they are appropriate 

and that they serve as useful reminders 

of safe practices for technicians and 

manufacturers. EPA recognizes that 

some of these recommendations are 

reflected in OSHA regulations for 

worker health and safety. For this 

reason, EPA is adding a cross-reference 

to OSHA regulations at 29 CFR part 

1910 (Occupational Health and Safety 

Standards) in order to ensure that 

regulated entities are aware of these 

requirements. Specifically, Appendix R 

provides a cross-reference to 29 CFR 

1910.106 (flammable and combustible 

liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling 

of liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 

(portable fire extinguishers), and 

1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous 

substances). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ It raises 

novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78853 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

final rule is an Agency determination. It 

contains no new requirements for 

reporting. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing 

regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0226. This 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

included five types of respondent 

reporting and recordkeeping activities 

pursuant to SNAP regulations: 

Submission of a SNAP petition, filing a 

SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification 

for test marketing activity, 

recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable 

subject to use restrictions, and 

recordkeeping for small-volume uses. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 

and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by Small 

Business Administration regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. The 

requirements of this final rule affect the 

manufacturers of household 

refrigerators and freezers and retail food 

refrigerators and freezers. Today’s action 

allows users the additional options of 

using isobutane, propane, and R–441A, 

but does not mandate such use. Because 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A 

refrigeration systems are not yet 

manufactured in the U.S. (with the 

exception of limited test-marketing), 

and because the final rule actually 

imposes fewer requirements than the 

proposed rule (i.e., removal of the 

unique fittings requirement), 

manufacturers would not be required to 

change business practices to meet the 

use conditions and thus the rule would 

not impose any new costs on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

The enforceable requirements of this 

final rule related to integrating risk 

mitigation devices, markings, and 

procedures for maintaining the safety of 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

using hydrocarbon refrigerants affect 

only small number of manufacturers of 

these appliances and their technicians. 

This rule provides additional refrigerant 

options, allowing greater flexibility for 

industry in designing consumer 

products. Further, since appliances 

using hydrocarbon refrigerants are not 

yet widely produced in the U.S., we do 

not expect impacts on existing users. 

Thus this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This regulation applies 

directly to facilities that use these 

substances and not to governmental 

entities. The finding of ‘‘acceptability 

subject to use conditions’’ for isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A does not impact 

the private sector because 

manufacturers are not producing 

systems under the current regulation. 

This final rule does not mandate a 

switch to these substitutes; 

consequently, there is no direct 

economic impact on entities from this 

rulemaking. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies directly to facilities that use 

these substances and not to 

governmental entities. Thus Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This final rule provides both 

regulatory restrictions and 

recommended guidelines based upon 

risk screens conducted in order to 

reduce risk of fire and explosion. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Preliminary information indicates that 

appliances using these hydrocarbon 

refrigerants may be more energyefficient than currently available 

systems in some climates. Therefore, we 

have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This final rule involves incorporation 

by reference of technical standards 

issued by Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) concerning the safety and 

reliability of flammable refrigerants. UL 

standards are voluntary consensus 

standards. The use conditions in the 

rule require, for the household 

refrigeration end-use, adherence to the 

UL Standard for Household 

Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 250, 10th 

edition, 1993, updated August 2000. 

The use conditions also require, for the 

retail food refrigeration end-use, 

adherence to the UL Standard for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, 

UL 471, 10th edition, November 2010. 

Copies of UL 250 and UL 471 may be 

purchased at http:// 

ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This final rule 

would allow sale of appliances with 

refrigerant substitutes that have no ODP 

and low GWPs. The reduction in ODS 

and GHG emissions would assist in 

restoring the stratospheric ozone layer 

and provide climate benefits. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective February 21, 2012. 

VIII. References 

This preamble references the 

following documents, which are also in 

the Air and Radiation Docket at the 

address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless 

specified otherwise, all documents are 

available electronically through the 

Federal Docket Management System, 

Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286. 

ACRIB, 2001. Guidelines for the Use of 

Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Static 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Systems. Air Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Industry Board. 2001. 

A.D. Little, 1991. Risk Assessment of 

Flammable Refrigerants for Use in Home 

Appliances (draft report). Arthur D. 

Little, Inc., for EPA, Division of Global 

Change. September 10, 1991. Docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286–0023. 

A.D. Little, 2002. Global Comparative 

Analysis of HFC and Alternative 

Technologies for Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol 

Propellant, and Fire Protection 

Applications. Final Report to the 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric 

Policy, March 21, 2002. Available online 

at http://www.arap.org/adlittle/4.html. 

Accessed on October 13, 2011. 

AHRI, 2008. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute, AHRI Guideline 

N–2008: Assignment of Refrigerant 

Colors. 2008. 

ASHRAE, 2010. American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 

Standard 34–2010: Designation and 

Safety Classification of Refrigerants. 

2010. (Supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2007.) 

A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc., 2007. Significant 

New Alternatives Policy Program 

Submission to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. June 

2007. 

A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc., 2009. HCR–188C 

New Composition. Follow-up to the 

HCR–188C Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program Submission to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. 

August 2009. 

Ben and Jerry’s, 2008. Ben and Jerry’s/ 

Unilever, Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program Submission to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, 

October 2008. 

EPA, 1994. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Technical Background Document: 

Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for 

Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. 

Stratospheric Protection Division. 

March, 1994. 

GE, 2008. General Electric. Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission 

to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, October 2008. 

Greenpeace, 1997. ‘‘Greenfreeze A 

Revolution in Domestic Refrigeration.’’ 

Available online at http://archive.

greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/. 

Accessed on October 13, 2011. 

ICF, 1997. ICF Consulting. Physiological 

Effects of Alternative Fire Protection 

Agents—Hypoxic Atmospheres 

Conference. Proceedings of the 

conference held May 22, 1997 in New 

London, CT. 

ICF, 2009a. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program— 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 in Household Refrigerators and 

Household Freezers—Substitute: 

Isobutane.’’ May 22, 2009. 

ICF, 2009b. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program— 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12, HCFC–22, and R502 in Retail 

Food Refrigeration—Substitute: 

Propane.’’ May 26, 2009. 

ICF, 2009c. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program in the 

Household Refrigeration Sector—Risk 

Screen on Substitutes for CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22 in Household Refrigerators, 

Freezers and Window AC Units— 

Substitute: HCR–188C.’’ July 17, 2009. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78855 

ICF, 2009d. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program— 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and HCFC–22 in Household 

Refrigerators and Freezers—Substitute: 

HCR–188C1.’’ November 6, 2009. 

ICF, 2011a. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and HCFC–22 in Household 

Refrigerators and Household Freezers— 

Substitute: Isobutane.’’ June 2011. 

ICF, 2011b. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12, HCFC–22 and R502 in Retail 

Food Refrigeration—Substitute: 

Propane.’’ June 2011. 

ICF, 2011c. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program in the 

Household Refrigeration Sector—Risk 

Screen on Substitutes for CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22 in Household Refrigerators and 

Freezers—Substitute: R–441.’’ June 2011. 

ICF, 2011d. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Additional enduse modeling for household refrigerators 

and freezers.’’ July 2011. 

IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Safeguarding the Ozone 

Layer and the Global Climate System: 

Special Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Bert 

Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan Solomon, 

Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade 

Davidson, Jose Pons, David de Jager, 

Tahl Kestin, Martin Manning and Leo 

Meyer. Cambridge University Press. 

2005. Available online at: http:// 

www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/ 

sroc_full.pdf. 

Murray, D.M. 1997. ‘‘Residential House and 

Zone Volumes in the United States: 

Empirical and Estimated Parametric 

Distributions.’’ Risk Analysis. 17(4): 

439–446. 

ORNL, 1997. J. Sand, S. Fischer, and V. 

Baxter, ‘‘Energy and Global Warming 

Impacts of HFC Refrigerants and 

Emerging Technologies,’’ 1997, Oak 

Ridge National Lab. 

RTOC, 2010. The 2010 Report of the United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP)’s Refrigeration, Air Conditioning 

and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee (RTOC). Available online at 

http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/ 

RTOC/RTOC-Assessment-report2010.pdf. 

TEAP, 2010. United Nations Environment 

Programme. Report of the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel. 

Available online at http:// 

ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/ 

TEAP_Reports/teap-2010-progressreport-volume2-May2010.pdf. 

UL, 2000. UL 250: Household Refrigerators 

and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement 

SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and 

Freezers Employing a Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August 

25, 2000. 

UL, 2010. UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators 

and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement 

SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and 

Freezers Employing a Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 

November 24, 2010. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 

2011. WMO Scientific Assessment of 

Ozone Depletion: 2010. Available online 

at http://ozone.unep.org/ 

Assessment_Panels/SAP/ 

Scientific_Assessment_2010/ 

index.shtml. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 9, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 

82 as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671— 

7671q. 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

■ 2. Subpart G is amended by adding 

Appendix R to read as follows: 

Appendix R to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

Listed in the December 20, 2011 Final 

Rule, Effective February 21, 2012 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Household refrigerators, freezers, 

and combination refrigerators and 

freezers.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R–600a) 

as a substitute for 

CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22.

R–441A as a substitute for CFC–12 

and HCFC–22 

Acceptable Subject 

To Use Conditions.

These refrigerants may be used only in new 

equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant (i.e., none 

of these substitutes may be used as a 

conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing equipment designed for a different 

refrigerant) 

These refrigerants may be used only in a refrigerator or freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer, that meets all requirements listed in Supplement SA to the 10th 

edition of the Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) Standard for Household Refrigerators 

and Freezers, UL 250, dated 1993 updated August 2000. In cases where the 

final rule includes requirements more 

stringent than those of the 10th edition of 

UL 250, the appliance must meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the 

requirements in the UL Standard 

The quantity of the substitute refrigerant 

(i.e., ‘‘charge size’’) shall not exceed 57 

grams (2.0 ounces) in any refrigerator, 

freezer, or combination refrigerator and 

freezer for each circuit 

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 1910 must be followed, including 

those at 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable 

and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum 

gases), 1910.157 (portable fire extinguishers), and 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). 

Proper ventilation should be maintained at 

all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants through adherence to good 

manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 

1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air 

surrounding the equipment rise above 

one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 

the space should be evacuated and reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling 

isobutane and R–441A. Special care 

should be taken to avoid contact with the 

skin since these refrigerants, like many refrigerants, can cause freeze burns on the 

skin. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

A class B dry powder type fire extinguisher 

should be kept nearby. 

Technicians should only use spark-proof 

tools when working on refrigerators and 

freezers with isobutane and R–441A. 

Recovery equipment designed for flammable 

refrigerants should be used. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service refrigerators and freezers containing 

these refrigerants. Technicians should 

gain an understanding of minimizing the 

risk of fire and the steps to use flammable 

refrigerants safely. 

Household refrigerators, freezers, 

and combination refrigerators and 

freezers.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R–600a) 

as a substitute for 

CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22.

R–441A as a substitute for CFC–12 

and HCFC–22 

Acceptable Subject 

To Use Conditions.

As provided in clauses SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 

of UL Standard 250, the following markings shall be attached at the locations 

provided and shall be permanent: 

(a) On or near any evaporators that can be 

contacted by the consumer: ‘‘DANGERRisk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical 

Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not 

Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ 

(b) Near the machine compartment: ‘‘DANGER-Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired 

Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do 

Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ 

(c) Near the machine compartment: ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair 

Manual/Owner’s Guide Before Attempting 

To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ 

Room occupants should evacuate the space 

immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. 

If a service port is added then household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the 

diameter differs by at least 1/16 inch or 

the thread direction is reversed (i.e., righthanded vs. left-handed). These different 

fittings should be permanently affixed to 

the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and 

should not be accessed with an adaptor. 

(d) On the exterior of the refrigerator: 

‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ 

(e) Near any and all exposed refrigerant tubing: ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion 

Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; 

Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ 

All of these markings shall be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. 

The refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer must have red, 

Pantone® Matching System (PMS) #185 

marked pipes, hoses, or other devices 

through which the refrigerant is serviced 

(typically known as the service port) to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. 

This color must be present at all service 

ports and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might 

be expected (e.g., process tubes). The 

color mark must extend at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from the compressor and 

must be replaced if removed. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 78857 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units 

only).

(New equipment only) 

Propane (R–290) as a 

substitute for CFC– 

12, HCFC–22, and 

R–502.

Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

These refrigerants may be used only in new 

equipment specifically designed and clearly identified for the refrigerants (i.e., none 

of these substitutes may be used as a 

conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing equipment designed for other refrigerants). 

These substitutes may only be used in 

equipment that meets all requirements in 

Supplement SB to the 10th edition of the 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 

for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 471, dated November 2010. In 

cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of 

the 10th edition of UL 471, the appliance 

must meet the requirements of the final 

rule in place of the requirements in the UL 

Standard. 

The charge size for the retail food refrigerator or freezer shall not exceed 150 

grams (5.3 ounces) in each circuit. 

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 1910 must be followed, including 

those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and 

1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of 

liquefied petroleum gases), and 

1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). 

Proper ventilation should be maintained at 

all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants through adherence to good 

manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 

1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air 

surrounding the equipment rise above 

one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 

the space should be evacuated and reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling 

propane. Special care should be taken to 

avoid contact with the skin since propane, 

like many refrigerants, can cause freeze 

burns on the skin. 

A class B dry powder type fire extinguisher 

should be kept nearby. 

Technicians should only use spark-proof 

tools when working on refrigerators and 

freezers with propane. 

Recovery equipment designed for flammable 

refrigerants should be used. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service refrigerators and freezers containing 

these refrigerants. Technicians should 

gain an understanding of minimizing the 

risk of fire and the steps to use flammable 

refrigerants safely. 

Retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units 

only).

(New equipment only) 

Propane (R–290) as a 

substitute for CFC– 

12, HCFC–22, and 

R–502.

Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 

of UL Standard 471, the following markings shall be attached at the locations 

provided and shall be permanent: 

(a) Attach on or near any evaporators that 

can be contacted by the consumer: 

‘‘DANGER-Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use 

Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ 

(b) Attach near the machine compartment: 

‘‘DANGER-Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ 

(c) Attach near the machine compartment: 

‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All 

Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ 

Room occupants should evacuate the space 

immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. 

If a service port is added then household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the 

diameter differs by at least 1/16 inch or 

the thread direction is reversed (i.e., righthanded vs. left-handed). These different 

fittings should be permanently affixed to 

the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and 

should not be accessed with an adaptor. 

(d) Attach on the exterior of the refrigerator: 

‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ 

(e) Attach near any and all exposed refrigerant tubing: ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant 

Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions 

Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ 

All of these markings shall be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
78858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

The refrigerator or freezer must have red, 

Pantone® Matching System (PMS) #185 

marked pipes, hoses, and other devices 

through which the refrigerant is serviced, 

typically known as the service port, to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. 

This color must be present at all service 

ports and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might 

be expected (e.g., process tubes). The 

color mark must extend at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from the compressor and 

must be replaced if removed. 

Note: In accordance with the limitations provided in section 310(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7610(a)), nothing in this table shall affect the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations’ authority to promulgate and enforce standards and other requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 

U.S.C. 651 et seq.). 

Note: The use conditions in this appendix contain references to certain standards from Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL). The standards are incorporated by reference, and the referenced sections are made part of the regulations in part 82: 

1. UL 250: Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant 

in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August 25, 2000. 

2. UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant 

in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 24, 2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of UL Standards 250 

and 471 may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1 (888) 853–3503 in 

the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1 (415) 352–2168); Internet address: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. 

You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32175 Filed 12–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252 

RIN 0750–AH43 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Utilization of 

Domestic Photovoltaic Devices 

(DFARS Case 2011–D046) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing an interim rule 

to implement a section of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011. The section provides that 

photovoltaic devices to be utilized in 

performance of any covered contract 

shall comply with the Buy American 

statute, subject to the exceptions 

provided in the Trade Agreements Act 

of 1979 or otherwise provided by law. 

DATES: Effective date: December 20, 

2011. 

Comment date: Comments on the 

interim rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before February 21, 2012, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2011–D046, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal by inserting 

‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D046’’ under the 

heading ‘‘Enter keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D046.’’ Follow 

the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit 

a Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D046’’ on your 

attached document. 

Æ Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2011–D046 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 703–602–0350. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Amy G. 

Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy G. Williams, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3060. Telephone 703–602–0328; 

facsimile 703–602–0350.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In order to implement section 846 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111–383), 

this interim rule amends DFARS 

subpart 225.70 by adding a new section 

225.7017, Utilization of domestic 

photovoltaic devices, as well as an 

associated provision and clause in 

DFARS part 252 and conforming 

changes to DFARS part 212. 

Photovoltaic devices produce direct 

current electricity from sunlight, which 

can be used to provide power to things 

such as DoD-owned facilities or private 

housing. 

As specified in section 846, a 

‘‘covered contract’’ is defined in this 

interim rule as an energy savings 

performance contract, a utility service 

contract, or a private housing contract, 

if such contract will result in DoD 

ownership of photovoltaic devices, by 

means other than DoD purchase as end 

products. DoD is deemed to own a 

photovoltaic device if the device is— 

(1) Installed on DoD property or in a 

facility owned by DoD; and 

(2) Reserved for the exclusive use of 

DoD for the full economic life of the 

device. 

Prior to this definition, ownership 

would have required transfer of title for 

the equipment to the Government. 

Under section 846, exclusive use of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES